Centocinquanta Pty Limited v Demasi [2016] NSWSC 1689

Centocinquanta Pty Limited v Demasi [2016] NSWSC 1689

The conversations and conduct relied upon by the plaintiff did not support a conclusion that 86 Dunning Avenue Pty Limited or NFG Crows Nest Pty Limited granted, or agreed to grant, the plaintiff a right of occupation for value. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish a serious question to be tried or prima facie case that a retail lease or agreement for lease existed with either party, and interlocutory injunctive relief was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Landlord and Tenant Proceedings / Further Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 18 November 2016
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunctive relief refused; Further Amended Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'alleged Oral Retail Lease' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'prima Facie Case' 'right of Occupation' 'sub Lease' 'balance of Convenience']
['equity' 'landlord and Tenant' 'retail Leases'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'alleged Oral Retail Lease' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'prima Facie Case' 'right of Occupation' 'sub Lease' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Landlord and Tenant Proceedings / Further Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 18 November 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried or prima facie case that a retail lease existed between the plaintiff and 86 Dunning Avenue Pty Limited.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried or prima facie case that a retail lease or agreement for lease existed between the plaintiff and NFG Crows Nest Pty Limited.' "Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted requiring removal of the wall or partition and restraining interference with the plaintiff's delicatessen and cafe business."]

Ratio Decidendi

The conversations and conduct relied upon by the plaintiff did not support a conclusion that 86 Dunning Avenue Pty Limited or NFG Crows Nest Pty Limited granted, or agreed to grant, the plaintiff a right of occupation for value. The plaintiff therefore failed to establish a serious question to be tried or prima facie case that a retail lease or agreement for lease existed with either party, and interlocutory injunctive relief was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunctive relief refused; Further Amended Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Further Amended Notice of Motion filed on 18 November 2016 is dismissed with costs."]