Stefopoulos v Manikas [2004] NSWADT 57

Stefopoulos v Manikas [2004] NSWADT 57

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the claims for damages and compensation as they fall within section 70(a)(i) of the Retail Leases Act 1994; the power to make orders in the nature sought by the applicant is provided by section 72. The law does not preclude the Tribunal from determining such claims, and amendments to legislation support this broader jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant: Alex Stefopoulos; Respondent: Dimitri Manikas; Respondent: Georgina Manikas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim / Preliminary Jurisdictional Objection
Outcome
Objection to jurisdiction dismissed
Legal Topics
Tribunal Jurisdiction, Retail Tenancy Claims, Statutory Interpretation
Retail Leases Administrative Law Tribunal Jurisdiction Retail Tenancy Claims Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Stefopoulos

Applicant

Dimitri Manikas

Respondent

Georgina Manikas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Tenancy Claim / Preliminary Jurisdictional Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine claims for damages and compensation under the Retail Leases Act 1994, specifically under section 70(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the claims for damages and compensation as they fall within section 70(a)(i) of the Retail Leases Act 1994; the power to make orders in the nature sought by the applicant is provided by section 72. The law does not preclude the Tribunal from determining such claims, and amendments to legislation support this broader jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Objection to jurisdiction dismissed

Orders

  • The Tribunal determines the objection to jurisdiction against the Respondents and orders that the proceedings ought to be determined.