BELLOS v AMP [1999] NSWCA 385

BELLOS v AMP [1999] NSWCA 385

The goods had remained uncollected for many months after termination of the lease and notices to remove them. The appellants' asbestos and rent-suspension contentions, even if they explained non-collection, did not affect the characterisation of the goods as uncollected. The proposed further evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant, post-order complaints could not invalidate the orders when made, and there was no costs determination capable of review. The appeal therefore failed on all grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Orders Made by Dowd J Pursuant to the Uncollected Goods Act 1995
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['uncollected Goods' 'goods Left on Premises at Termination of Lease' 'validity of Orders Made Under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'costs']
['property Law' 'leases' 'civil Procedure'] ['uncollected Goods' 'goods Left on Premises at Termination of Lease' 'validity of Orders Made Under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'costs']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Orders Made by Dowd J Pursuant to the Uncollected Goods Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether goods left on leased premises after termination of the lease were uncollected goods within the meaning of s 5(a) of the Uncollected Goods Act 1995.' 'Whether alleged suspension of rent because of asbestos contamination affected whether the goods were uncollected.' "Whether post-order complaints about delay in auctioning the goods or the conduct of the sale could show that Dowd J's orders were wrongly made." 'Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on appeal under SCR Pt 51AA r 13A.' "Whether there was any appealable costs order concerning the Society's motion filed in the action."]

Ratio Decidendi

The goods had remained uncollected for many months after termination of the lease and notices to remove them. The appellants' asbestos and rent-suspension contentions, even if they explained non-collection, did not affect the characterisation of the goods as uncollected. The proposed further evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant, post-order complaints could not invalidate the orders when made, and there was no costs determination capable of review. The appeal therefore failed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']