Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd v Joseph John Romanos [2023] NSWCATCD 98

Punjabi Fusion Group Pty Ltd v Joseph John Romanos [2023] NSWCATCD 98

The Applicant's proceedings were dismissed because they were manifestly untenable and misconceived due to lack of jurisdiction. The Applicant identified no statutory avenue for setting aside the consent orders made on 27 October 2022; renewal under Schedule 4 clause 8 was unavailable because no order was made in favour of the Applicant and the orders had been complied with; claims based on the 2019 lease were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process; and the remaining allegations concerning the sale process and prospective purchaser arose from the Heads of Agreement rather than from a retail shop lease with the close connection required for a retail tenancy claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Retail Leases Application in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Respondent's Summary Dismissal Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed pursuant to s55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'res Judicata and Issue Estoppel' 'retail Tenancy Claim']
['retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'tribunal Jurisdiction'] ['summary Dismissal' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'res Judicata and Issue Estoppel' 'retail Tenancy Claim']

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

Retail Leases Application in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Respondent's Summary Dismissal Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should summarily dismiss the Applicant's proceedings under s55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the consent orders made on 27 October 2022.' 'Whether the Applicant could renew the earlier proceedings under Schedule 4 clause 8 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the Applicant was estopped from relitigating issues concerning the 2019 lease.' 'Whether the claims concerning a prospective purchaser and assignment had a sufficient connection with a retail shop lease to constitute a retail tenancy claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's proceedings were dismissed because they were manifestly untenable and misconceived due to lack of jurisdiction. The Applicant identified no statutory avenue for setting aside the consent orders made on 27 October 2022; renewal under Schedule 4 clause 8 was unavailable because no order was made in favour of the Applicant and the orders had been complied with; claims based on the 2019 lease were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process; and the remaining allegations concerning the sale process and prospective purchaser arose from the Heads of Agreement rather than from a retail shop lease with the close connection required for a retail tenancy claim.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed pursuant to s55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Orders

  • ["A hearing of the Respondent's summary dismissal application is dispensed with." 'The proceedings are dismissed pursuant to s55 (1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.( NCAT)' 'Each party to pay their own costs proceedings.' 'In the event either party contends a different costs order should be...