Alramon Pty Limited v Lifuli Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 270

Alramon Pty Limited v Lifuli Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 270

The Respondent breached its contractual obligations by painting and failing to properly maintain the ceiling and walls, resulting in the need for rectification; the Applicant obtained an appropriate quotation, paid for the works, and quantum was unchallenged. The mere assertion that the incoming tenant may have also paid for similar works does not discharge the Respondent's liability, given evidence that the Applicant actually paid the builder to rectify damage caused by the Respondent's breach.

Parties
Applicant: Alramon Pty Limited; Respondent: Lifuli Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Applicant
Legal Topics
Retail Leases, Breach of Lease, Make Good Obligations, Damages
Property Law Retail Leases Breach of Lease Make Good Obligations Damages

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

Parties

Alramon Pty Limited

Applicant

Lifuli Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Lease Dispute / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent breached its make good obligations under the lease upon vacating the premises
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to recover the cost of repairs paid to the builder for rectification of damage caused by the Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent breached its contractual obligations by painting and failing to properly maintain the ceiling and walls, resulting in the need for rectification; the Applicant obtained an appropriate quotation, paid for the works, and quantum was unchallenged. The mere assertion that the incoming tenant may have also paid for similar works does not discharge the Respondent's liability, given evidence that the Applicant actually paid the builder to rectify damage caused by the Respondent's breach.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Applicant

Orders

  • The Respondent pay the Applicant $5,060.00
  • Unless either party moves the Tribunal within 28 days for a costs order, there be no order as to costs