Rahman v Oprescu [2011] NSWADT 124

Rahman v Oprescu [2011] NSWADT 124

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because, in view of the orders made on 7 October 2010 and the lack of supporting evidence for the further claims, the application sought to re-agitate matters already dealt with; most claimed items concerned ordinary costs of leasing the premises to a new tenant or periods after vacation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Retail Leases Division Claim for Leasing Costs / Separate Question Decided on the Papers
Outcome
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['claim for Leasing Costs' 'arrears of Rent' 'vacating Premises' 're Agitation of Prior Tribunal Orders']
['retail Leases' 'tribunal Jurisdiction'] ['claim for Leasing Costs' 'arrears of Rent' 'vacating Premises' 're Agitation of Prior Tribunal Orders']

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 Leases Division Claim for Leasing Costs / Separate Question Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the applicants' claim for damages and leasing costs following earlier orders concerning the same premises and lease." 'Whether the respondent failed to vacate the premises by 15 October 2010 as ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because, in view of the orders made on 7 October 2010 and the lack of supporting evidence for the further claims, the application sought to re-agitate matters already dealt with; most claimed items concerned ordinary costs of leasing the premises to a new tenant or periods after vacation.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.']