Funfood Pty Ltd v Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 189

Funfood Pty Ltd v Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 189

The decision under appeal was interlocutory and leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the Appellant did not identify an issue of principle, question of public importance, reasonably clear injustice, clear factual error or unfair fact-finding process. The Tribunal did not err by declining to finally determine the validity of the termination notices on an urgent interim application, by focusing on the balance of convenience, or by finding that damages were adequate, delay weighed against relief, and the undertaking as to damages was unsupported by evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and special circumstances justified an order that the Appellant pay the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Retail Leases Proceedings / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision Refusing Interim Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; Appellant ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis in an amount agreed or as assessed.
Legal Topics
['interim Relief' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'hearsay Evidence' 'costs on Appeal']
['retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'costs'] ['interim Relief' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'hearsay Evidence' 'costs on Appeal']

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

Appeal in Retail Leases Proceedings / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision Refusing Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was required because the decision under appeal was interlocutory.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred by not determining at the interim stage whether the notices of termination were invalid.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in considering the balance of convenience, adequacy of damages, delay, rent arrears and the undertaking as to damages.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in its treatment of hearsay evidence.' 'Whether costs of the appeal should be awarded to the Respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The decision under appeal was interlocutory and leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the Appellant did not identify an issue of principle, question of public importance, reasonably clear injustice, clear factual error or unfair fact-finding process. The Tribunal did not err by declining to finally determine the validity of the termination notices on an urgent interim application, by focusing on the balance of convenience, or by finding that damages were adequate, delay weighed against relief, and the undertaking as to damages was unsupported by evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and special circumstances justified an order that the Appellant pay the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; Appellant ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis in an amount agreed or as assessed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.' "The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis in an amount agreed or as assessed."]