Wood & Wilson -v- Bergman [2003] NSWADT 82

Wood & Wilson -v- Bergman [2003] NSWADT 82

The lease did not provide for the premises to be used wholly or predominantly for businesses specified in Schedule 1 of the Act; neither the parties' intention nor the actual use established the requisite predominant use. Consequently, the lease is not a 'retail shop lease' under the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Peter Wood; Applicant: Leanne Maree Wilson; Respondent: Angelique Bergman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Damages / Principal Matter, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Definition of Retail Shop Lease, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Predominant Use Test
Retail Leases Commercial Tenancy Definition of Retail Shop Lease Tribunal Jurisdiction Predominant Use Test

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Peter Wood

Applicant

Leanne Maree Wilson

Applicant

Angelique Bergman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Damages / Principal Matter, Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease is a retail shop lease as defined in s 3 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The lease did not provide for the premises to be used wholly or predominantly for businesses specified in Schedule 1 of the Act; neither the parties' intention nor the actual use established the requisite predominant use. Consequently, the lease is not a 'retail shop lease' under the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declare that the lease between the parties is not a retail shop lease under the Retail Leases Act 1994.
  • Declare that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Lessees' application.