Eventus Group Pty Ltd v Ipoh Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 66

Eventus Group Pty Ltd v Ipoh Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 66

The respondent did not represent that menu expansion or installation of an exhaust facility would be permitted, and its decisions regarding menu expansion and denial of exhaust facility were made reasonably and in good faith within the permitted use clause. No evidence of pre-lease misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct, or unconscionable conduct was established. Relief sought by the applicant was not supported by evidence or contract terms.

Parties
Applicant: Eventus Group Pty Ltd; Respondent: Ipoh Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Retail Tenancy, Unconscionable Conduct, Misrepresentation, Permitted Use, Lease Negotiations
Commercial Law Property Law Retail Tenancy Unconscionable Conduct Misrepresentation Permitted Use Lease Negotiations

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eventus Group Pty Ltd

Applicant

Ipoh Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Lease Dispute / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent represented it would permit menu expansion or installation of an exhaust facility
  2. 2 Whether such alleged representations constituted misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to menu expansion based on the permitted use clause

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not represent that menu expansion or installation of an exhaust facility would be permitted, and its decisions regarding menu expansion and denial of exhaust facility were made reasonably and in good faith within the permitted use clause. No evidence of pre-lease misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct, or unconscionable conduct was established. Relief sought by the applicant was not supported by evidence or contract terms.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed
  • Costs reserved