John Serafim and Presdate Pty Limited v J V Pigott Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 187

John Serafim and Presdate Pty Limited v J V Pigott Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 187

The second determination published on or about 15 March 2012 fully discharged the valuer's role; the third determination merely expressed more accurately the assumptions used and had no legal significance. The application lodged on 23 May 2012 was therefore outside the 21 day period in s 32A(2), and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend that time. The application was dismissed and, given the commercially informed and legally represented parties and the Respondent's prior warnings about the time limit, the Applicants were ordered to pay the Respondent's costs on a party and party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 32 a of the Retail Leases Act 1994 for Review of a Specialist Retail Valuer's Determination of Current Market Rent / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed. Applicants to pay Respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['specialist Retail Valuer Determination' 'current Market Rent Review' 'time Limit for Application' 'jurisdiction to Extend Time' 'party and Party Costs']
['administrative Law' 'retail Leases' 'costs'] ['specialist Retail Valuer Determination' 'current Market Rent Review' 'time Limit for Application' 'jurisdiction to Extend Time' 'party and Party 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

Application Under S 32 a of the Retail Leases Act 1994 for Review of a Specialist Retail Valuer's Determination of Current Market Rent / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for review was made within 21 days after the Applicants first received a copy of the determination under s 32A(2) of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' "Whether the valuer's third document dated 15 May 2012 was the operative determination for the purposes of s 32A." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s 44 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to extend the 21 day period.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the Applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second determination published on or about 15 March 2012 fully discharged the valuer's role; the third determination merely expressed more accurately the assumptions used and had no legal significance. The application lodged on 23 May 2012 was therefore outside the 21 day period in s 32A(2), and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend that time. The application was dismissed and, given the commercially informed and legally represented parties and the Respondent's prior warnings about the time limit, the Applicants were ordered to pay the Respondent's costs on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Applicants to pay Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' "Applicants to pay Respondent's costs of the Application on a party and party basis as agreed or assessed."]