City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd v Dencal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 205

City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd v Dencal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 205

Section 69 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 does not render a settlement agreement reached as the result of mediation inadmissible; such agreements are enforceable and admissible as evidence. Both appellants, through their conduct and signatures, are bound by the settlement agreement. An email communicating intention to perform the settlement agreement, not sent to a lawyer and disclosed to the other party, is not privileged. No procedural unfairness was demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Settlement Agreements' 'privilege in Mediation' 'enforcement of Mediated Settlements' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'procedural Fairness']
['commercial Law' 'retail Tenancy' 'contract Law'] ['admissibility of Settlement Agreements' 'privilege in Mediation' 'enforcement of Mediated Settlements' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s69 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 renders a settlement agreement inadmissible in Tribunal proceedings' 'Whether a settlement agreement reached in mediation is binding on all parties' 'Whether an email from a non-lawyer representative is inadmissible on grounds of privilege' 'Whether procedural fairness was denied in Tribunal proceedings on the question of admissibility of the settlement agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 69 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 does not render a settlement agreement reached as the result of mediation inadmissible; such agreements are enforceable and admissible as evidence. Both appellants, through their conduct and signatures, are bound by the settlement agreement. An email communicating intention to perform the settlement agreement, not sent to a lawyer and disclosed to the other party, is not privileged. No procedural unfairness was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' 'Any application for costs is to be filed and served within 7 days from the date of these orders. Any application is to include written submissions and any other material to be relied upon in support of the application.' 'The party against whom any application for costs is made must file and...