Chapman v Chang & anor [2002] NSWADT 275

Chapman v Chang & anor [2002] NSWADT 275

The Lessors' strenuous pursuit of rent arrears and a higher rent did not amount to breach of quiet enjoyment, but the lockout after an agreed orderly termination and without proper notice was wrongful and contrary to s.129 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The Lessee did not prove that the lockout caused loss of business, goodwill or clientele, but did prove specific costs caused by the lockout totalling $1,986.37. The Lessors failed to establish any basis to forfeit the bond, while their cross-claim for unpaid rent to the date of lockout in the amount of $1,091.42 was established and could be set off.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Claim for Payment of Money in Relation to a Retail Shop Lease / Principal Matter
Outcome
Lessee's application allowed in part; Lessors' cross-application for unpaid rent allowed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['retail Shop Lease' 'unlawful Lockout' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'forfeiture and Re Entry' 'rent Arrears' 'bond Release' 'damages' 'costs']
['retail Leases' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['retail Shop Lease' 'unlawful Lockout' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'forfeiture and Re Entry' 'rent Arrears' 'bond Release' 'damages' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Payment of Money in Relation to a Retail Shop Lease / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Lessors' rent increase negotiations and demands for rent arrears breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment or otherwise entitled the Lessee to damages." 'Whether the lockout and purported termination were wrongful and contrary to statutory restrictions on re-entry or forfeiture.' 'Whether the Lessee proved loss of business, goodwill or reputation caused by the lockout.' 'Whether the Lessors were entitled to retain the bond for alleged disrepair or other items.' 'Whether the Lessors were entitled to unpaid rent up to the date of lockout.' 'Whether any costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Lessors' strenuous pursuit of rent arrears and a higher rent did not amount to breach of quiet enjoyment, but the lockout after an agreed orderly termination and without proper notice was wrongful and contrary to s.129 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The Lessee did not prove that the lockout caused loss of business, goodwill or clientele, but did prove specific costs caused by the lockout totalling $1,986.37. The Lessors failed to establish any basis to forfeit the bond, while their cross-claim for unpaid rent to the date of lockout in the amount of $1,091.42 was established and could be set off.

Court Disposition

Lessee's application allowed in part; Lessors' cross-application for unpaid rent allowed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Lessors to pay the Lessee $1986.37 and to release the bond of $600 to the Lessee, subject to Order 2.' 'The Lessee to pay the Lessor unpaid rent of $1,091.42 which the lessors may set off against the amount payable by them.' 'No order as to costs.']