Bardot v Horowitz [2013] NSWADT 283
The application was dismissed because it was lodged out of time, the applicant failed to raise the claims in previous proceedings, and the claims properly belonged to the tenant company, not the applicant. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs due to these failures and in fairness under the cost provisions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 December 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; applicant to pay respondent's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['unconscionable Conduct' 'abuse of Process' 'limitation Periods' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the application was lodged out of time under the Retail Leases Act 1994' 'Whether the applicant failed to raise claims in previous proceedings and is barred by abuse of process' 'Whether the claims properly belong to the lessee company rather than the applicant']
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because it was lodged out of time, the applicant failed to raise the claims in previous proceedings, and the claims properly belonged to the tenant company, not the applicant. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs due to these failures and in fairness under the cost provisions.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; applicant to pay respondent's costs.
Orders
- ['The Application of Bessie Mahalia Bardot filed 27 August 2013 is dismissed' "The Applicant must pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to opposing the application, such costs to be as agreed or as assessed"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment