Doltone House Group Pty Ltd v Premium Services Australia (PSA) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 516

Doltone House Group Pty Ltd v Premium Services Australia (PSA) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 516

The first plaintiff was entitled to terminate the lease due to the first defendant's failure to pay rent, an essential term. The first defendant also breached covenants by conducting unauthorised works. Damages for unpaid rent and rectification, with interest and indemnity costs, are appropriately awarded to the plaintiff. The second defendant is liable as guarantor. Quantum of damages is reasonable given the circumstances and efforts to mitigate. Judgment for $459,708.90 with further indemnity costs and interest.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Doltone House Group Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Signorelli Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Premium Services Australia (PSA) Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Mohamed Ahmed Hammoud
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants for $459,708.90, indemnity costs and post-judgment interest; execution stayed against the second defendant for 21 days with leave to seek vacation of orders.
Legal Topics
Rent and Outgoings, Repairs, Maintenance and Alterations, Breach of Essential Term, Termination of Lease, Damages, Guarantee
Leases and Tenancies Equity Rent and Outgoings Repairs, Maintenance and Alterations Breach of Essential Term Termination of Lease Damages Guarantee

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doltone House Group Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Signorelli Investments Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Premium Services Australia (PSA) Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Mohamed Ahmed Hammoud

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant breached the lease by failing to pay rent and undertaking unauthorised works
  2. 2 Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to damages for repairs and unpaid rent
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant is liable under the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The first plaintiff was entitled to terminate the lease due to the first defendant's failure to pay rent, an essential term. The first defendant also breached covenants by conducting unauthorised works. Damages for unpaid rent and rectification, with interest and indemnity costs, are appropriately awarded to the plaintiff. The second defendant is liable as guarantor. Quantum of damages is reasonable given the circumstances and efforts to mitigate. Judgment for $459,708.90 with further indemnity costs and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants for $459,708.90, indemnity costs and post-judgment interest; execution stayed against the second defendant for 21 days with leave to seek vacation of orders.

Orders

  • Judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $459,708.90.
  • Defendants to pay the legal fees incurred by the first plaintiff in the enforcement of the lease up to the date of its termination on the indemnity basis.