Lee v YOUth OK Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1356

Lee v YOUth OK Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1356

The lease was validly terminated for breach (non-payment of rent and failure to provide required bank guarantee). No misleading or deceptive conduct took place by landlord/agent; any representations allegedly made were not relied upon, and clause 20 operates as an effective disclaimer. Claims that the lease was frustrated or that the landlord acted unconscionably are rejected. Tenant and guarantor are liable for rent, mesne profits, and damages as per the lease terms; no claim for restitution or statutory protection under the Retail Leases Act or the COVID-19 regulations is available.

Parties
Plaintiff: Annie Lee; First Defendant: YOUth OK Pty Ltd ACN 634 484 674; Second Defendant: David Charles Hawkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Lease was validly terminated for breach; judgment for landlord for rent, mesne profits, and damages. Cross-claim dismissed. Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs. Issue of indemnity costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Leases and Tenancies, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Termination of Lease, Restitution, Frustration of Contract, Unconscionable Conduct
Equity Contracts Property Law Leases and Tenancies Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Termination of Lease Restitution Frustration of Contract +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Lee

Plaintiff

YOUth OK Pty Ltd ACN 634 484 674

First Defendant

David Charles Hawkins

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease was validly terminated for breach by the tenant's non-payment of rent and security deposit.
  2. 2 Whether the landlord or agent made misleading or deceptive representations regarding council approvals or compliance.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord breached obligations, especially under lease clause 7.4 regarding required works.

Ratio Decidendi

The lease was validly terminated for breach (non-payment of rent and failure to provide required bank guarantee). No misleading or deceptive conduct took place by landlord/agent; any representations allegedly made were not relied upon, and clause 20 operates as an effective disclaimer. Claims that the lease was frustrated or that the landlord acted unconscionably are rejected. Tenant and guarantor are liable for rent, mesne profits, and damages as per the lease terms; no claim for restitution or statutory protection under the Retail Leases Act or the COVID-19 regulations is available.

Court Disposition

Lease was validly terminated for breach; judgment for landlord for rent, mesne profits, and damages. Cross-claim dismissed. Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs. Issue of indemnity costs reserved.

Orders

  • Declaration that lease was validly terminated on 16 July 2020 for breach.
  • First defendant breached essential term by failing to pay rent by 1 November 2019 and monthly thereafter.