Chamberlain Early Learning Centre Pty Limited v Chamberlain Group Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 751 [2015] NSWSC 751

Chamberlain Early Learning Centre Pty Limited v Chamberlain Group Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 751 [2015] NSWSC 751

There was a serious question to be tried regarding whether the Plaintiff was excused from paying rent under clause 10.2 of the lease due to damage to the premises and whether the Defendant's re-entry was thus invalid. Alternatively, Plaintiff had a strong case for relief against forfeiture as it had paid all rent and gave undertakings for future payments. Balance of convenience favoured granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction to restore the Plaintiff's possession pending final determination, as damages would not be adequate, and prejudice to the Plaintiff from continued exclusion would be substantial.

Parties
Plaintiff: Chamberlain Early Learning Centre Pty Limited; Defendant: Chamberlain Group Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing/order
Outcome
Interlocutory mandatory injunction granted. Orders and directions made as agreed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Leases, Relief Against Forfeiture, Rent Abatement, Possession, Re Entry by Lessor
Practice and Procedure Real Property Interlocutory Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Leases Relief Against Forfeiture Rent Abatement Possession +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chamberlain Early Learning Centre Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Chamberlain Group Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing/order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory mandatory injunction restoring possession should be granted to Plaintiff lessee
  2. 2 Whether lessee liable to pay rent after premises damaged by flooding
  3. 3 Whether lessor validly terminated lease by re-entry

Ratio Decidendi

There was a serious question to be tried regarding whether the Plaintiff was excused from paying rent under clause 10.2 of the lease due to damage to the premises and whether the Defendant's re-entry was thus invalid. Alternatively, Plaintiff had a strong case for relief against forfeiture as it had paid all rent and gave undertakings for future payments. Balance of convenience favoured granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction to restore the Plaintiff's possession pending final determination, as damages would not be adequate, and prejudice to the Plaintiff from continued exclusion would be substantial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory mandatory injunction granted. Orders and directions made as agreed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff restored to possession of premises pending final determination or further order
  • Plaintiff to pay rent as and when due by undertaking