Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd; Singh v Khan [2020] NSWCATAP 11

Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd; Singh v Khan [2020] NSWCATAP 11

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeals dismissed because the appellants did not demonstrate an error of law warranting relief or any substantial miscarriage of justice on factual grounds. The Tribunal was not shown to have erred in rejecting the claims concerning subrogation, storm damage, tax invoices, recovery of GST or withholding tax, and the $85,000 payment. Although the Appeal Panel considered that an oral retail shop lease between Mr Singh and Fobupu Pty Ltd arose in about October 2015, that finding did not establish any entitlement to damages or other relief. The rent obligations were not conditional on provision of tax invoices, and the tax invoice/trust arguments had in any...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeals in Retail Lease Proceedings / Appeals AP 19/09967 and AP 19/28114 From Decisions of the Consumer and Commercial Division; Leave to Appeal Sought
Outcome
In each of the appeals AP 19/09967 and AP 19/28114 leave to appeal was refused and the appeals were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['retail Tenancy Claim' 'retail Shop Lease' 'oral Lease' 'exercise of Option to Renew' 'gst Tax Invoices and Rent' 'relief Against Forfeiture and Possession' 'leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'costs']
['leases and Tenancies' 'retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['retail Tenancy Claim' 'retail Shop Lease' 'oral Lease' 'exercise of Option to Renew' 'gst Tax Invoices and Rent' 'relief Against Forfeiture and Possession' 'leave to Amend Points of Claim' 'issue Estoppel' 'anshun Estoppel' 'costs']

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

Internal Appeals in Retail Lease Proceedings / Appeals AP 19/09967 and AP 19/28114 From Decisions of the Consumer and Commercial Division; Leave to Appeal Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to find there was a retail lease between Mr Singh and Fobupu Pty Ltd commencing from June 2009 or a later date.' "Whether Mr Singh was subrogated to Anmol Holdings Pty Ltd's rights under the Anmol lease." 'Whether allegedly invalid tax invoices or incorrect description of the landlord relieved Mr Singh or his companies of an obligation to pay rent.' 'Whether Mr Singh was entitled to recover GST and an amount equivalent to withholding tax said to arise from allegedly noncomplying tax invoices.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim for loss of profits arising from storm damage and alleged failure to rectify damage to the premises.' 'Whether Mr Singh was entitled to recover $85,000 said to have been illegally demanded by the landlord.' 'Whether leave should be granted to pursue factual challenges and challenges to refusal of leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeals dismissed because the appellants did not demonstrate an error of law warranting relief or any substantial miscarriage of justice on factual grounds. The Tribunal was not shown to have erred in rejecting the claims concerning subrogation, storm damage, tax invoices, recovery of GST or withholding tax, and the $85,000 payment. Although the Appeal Panel considered that an oral retail shop lease between Mr Singh and Fobupu Pty Ltd arose in about October 2015, that finding did not establish any entitlement to damages or other relief. The rent obligations were not conditional on provision of tax invoices, and the tax invoice/trust arguments had in any...

Court Disposition

In each of the appeals AP 19/09967 and AP 19/28114 leave to appeal was refused and the appeals were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In each of the appeals AP 19/09967 and AP 19/28114 leave to appeal is refused and the appeals are dismissed.' "In appeal AP 19/09967 the appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, such costs to be as agreed or assessed on an ordinary basis." "In appeal AP 19/28114 the appellants are to pay the...