Worsfold -v- de Goede [2002] NSWADT 273

Worsfold -v- de Goede [2002] NSWADT 273

The Tribunal found that the respondent, an experienced person in commercial matters dealing with an inexperienced applicant, used unfair tactics and failed to act in good faith by dealing directly with Mr Egan behind the applicant's back after she had opened sale discussions, thereby interfering with her ability to sell the business. He then issued an eviction notice on baseless grounds and wrongly locked the applicant out. This conduct was unconscionable within the meaning of the Retail Leases Act 1994, warranting an award of damages under s 72AA(1)(a), although the precise economic loss from the lost potential sale was difficult to quantify.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim and Unconscionable Conduct Claim Under the Retail Leases Act 1994 / Principal Matter After Hearing
Outcome
Application succeeded in part; damages awarded for unconscionable conduct.
Legal Topics
['retail Shop Lease' 'lessor Obligations' 'disclosure Statement' 'assignment of Lease' 'eviction Notice' 'lockout' 'unfair Tactics' 'good Faith']
['retail Leases' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'damages'] ['retail Shop Lease' 'lessor Obligations' 'disclosure Statement' 'assignment of Lease' 'eviction Notice' 'lockout' 'unfair Tactics' 'good Faith']

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 Tenancy Claim and Unconscionable Conduct Claim Under the Retail Leases Act 1994 / Principal Matter After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the premises fell within the meaning of a retail shop for the purposes of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' 'Whether the respondent breached obligations under the Act by failing to furnish a lease or disclosure statement or facilitate assignment of lease.' "Whether the respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct by dealing directly with the applicant's prospective purchaser, issuing an eviction notice without foundation, and locking the applicant out." 'What damages should be awarded for any unconscionable conduct and related loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent, an experienced person in commercial matters dealing with an inexperienced applicant, used unfair tactics and failed to act in good faith by dealing directly with Mr Egan behind the applicant's back after she had opened sale discussions, thereby interfering with her ability to sell the business. He then issued an eviction notice on baseless grounds and wrongly locked the applicant out. This conduct was unconscionable within the meaning of the Retail Leases Act 1994, warranting an award of damages under s 72AA(1)(a), although the precise economic loss from the lost potential sale was difficult to quantify.

Court Disposition

Application succeeded in part; damages awarded for unconscionable conduct.

Orders

  • ['That pursuant to s 72AA(1)(a) of the Retail Leases Act the respondent pay the applicant $6000 by way of damages.']