Hunt v Casaran Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 193

Hunt v Casaran Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 193

The valuation was not a valuation for the purposes of s 31 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 because it did not contain any meaningful discussion or reasons showing consideration of s 31(1)(a)(ii), particularly comparable rental evidence for the same or substantially similar use as a licensed post office, and therefore did not comply with s 31(1)(a)(ii) and s 31(1)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim and Application for Appointment of Specialist Retail Valuer / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicants succeeded; valuation declared not binding, specialist retail valuer appointment confirmed, and costs awarded against the Respondent.
Legal Topics
['current Market Rent Review' 'specialist Retail Valuer Appointment' 'validity of Valuation' 'costs']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law'] ['current Market Rent Review' 'specialist Retail Valuer Appointment' 'validity of Valuation' '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

Retail Tenancy Claim and Application for Appointment of Specialist Retail Valuer / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the valuation of David Bird of Kohler Bird dated 29 March 2011 was a valuation for the purposes of s 31 of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' 'Whether the Tribunal should confirm the appointment of Richard Wood as specialist retail valuer.' "Whether the Respondent should pay the Applicants' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The valuation was not a valuation for the purposes of s 31 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 because it did not contain any meaningful discussion or reasons showing consideration of s 31(1)(a)(ii), particularly comparable rental evidence for the same or substantially similar use as a licensed post office, and therefore did not comply with s 31(1)(a)(ii) and s 31(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Applicants succeeded; valuation declared not binding, specialist retail valuer appointment confirmed, and costs awarded against the Respondent.

Orders

  • ['On file number 115190 declare pursuant to Section 72(1)(f)(iii) of the Retail Leases Act 1994, that the parties are not bound by the valuation of David Bird of Kohler Bird, dated 29 March 2011 in respect of Shop 22, Bangor Shopping Centre as it is not a valuation for the purposes of Section 31 of that Act.' 'On...