Rai v Farah [2022] NSWCATCD 153

Rai v Farah [2022] NSWCATCD 153

The Tribunal found that the lease was between the Applicant and Mouda Laser Skin Clinic Pty Ltd as tenant. The parties agreed to $4,500.00 for unpaid rent. The Tenant vacated and returned keys on or about 13 December 2021 but had not removed all fixtures and fittings or restored the premises to their original state, so the Applicant was entitled to a reasonable restoration cost. Because the Applicant did not prove the claimed $15,070.00 by evidence of actual payment or actual work performed, the Tribunal allowed $2,880.00 based on Mr Farah's labour and skip-bin calculation. The claim for lost rent was rejected for lack of evidence connecting any rental loss to the Tenant's conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Retail Shop Lease Dispute / Principal Judgment After Appeal Panel Quashed Orders Made on 15 February 2022 and Remitted the Matter for Hearing
Outcome
Mouda Laser Skin Clinic Pty Ltd ordered to pay Dhan Pat Rai $7,830.00 within 28 days; application otherwise dismissed; directions made for any costs submissions.
Legal Topics
['retail Shop Lease' 'default and Termination' 'unpaid Rent' 'restoration of Premises' 'lost Rent' "tenant's Fixtures"]
['leases and Tenancies' 'retail Leases'] ['retail Shop Lease' 'default and Termination' 'unpaid Rent' 'restoration of Premises' 'lost Rent' "tenant's Fixtures"]

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 Shop Lease Dispute / Principal Judgment After Appeal Panel Quashed Orders Made on 15 February 2022 and Remitted the Matter for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who were the parties to the lease' 'What, if any, arrears of rent and outgoings were owed' 'What, if any, was the cost of restoring the premises at the end of the tenancy' 'Whether the Applicant was entitled to lost rent for January and February 2022']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the lease was between the Applicant and Mouda Laser Skin Clinic Pty Ltd as tenant. The parties agreed to $4,500.00 for unpaid rent. The Tenant vacated and returned keys on or about 13 December 2021 but had not removed all fixtures and fittings or restored the premises to their original state, so the Applicant was entitled to a reasonable restoration cost. Because the Applicant did not prove the claimed $15,070.00 by evidence of actual payment or actual work performed, the Tribunal allowed $2,880.00 based on Mr Farah's labour and skip-bin calculation. The claim for lost rent was rejected for lack of evidence connecting any rental loss to the Tenant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Mouda Laser Skin Clinic Pty Ltd ordered to pay Dhan Pat Rai $7,830.00 within 28 days; application otherwise dismissed; directions made for any costs submissions.

Orders

  • ['Mouda Laser Skin Clinic Pty Ltd is to pay Dhan Pat Rai $7830.00 within 28 days.' 'The application is otherwise dismissed.' 'If either party wishes to make an application for costs, they are to file submissions in support of that application including the costs order sought and whether the question of costs can be...