Goodlink Pty Ltd v Sing & Ors [1999] NSWADT 71

Goodlink Pty Ltd v Sing & Ors [1999] NSWADT 71

The premises did not satisfy the statutory definition of a 'retail shopping centre' as required for jurisdiction under the Retail Leases Act 1994. Since neither category (a) nor (b) of the definition was satisfied, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter and must dismiss the application.

Parties
Applicant: Goodlink Pty Limited; Respondent: Sing Chia Tan; Respondent: Ming Lu; Respondent: Chong Chin Ong; Respondent: Australian Property & Management Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim / Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Definition of Retail Shop, Retail Shopping Centre Criteria, Commencement of Lease, Application of Retail Leases Act 1994
Retail Leases Commercial Tenancy Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Definition of Retail Shop Retail Shopping Centre Criteria Commencement of Lease Application of Retail Leases Act 1994

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodlink Pty Limited

Applicant

Sing Chia Tan

Respondent

Ming Lu

Respondent

Chong Chin Ong

Respondent

Australian Property & Management Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Tenancy Claim / Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the premises constitute a 'retail shop' or form part of a 'retail shopping centre' within the meaning of section 3 of the Retail Leases Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief under the Act despite non-execution of lease

Ratio Decidendi

The premises did not satisfy the statutory definition of a 'retail shopping centre' as required for jurisdiction under the Retail Leases Act 1994. Since neither category (a) nor (b) of the definition was satisfied, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter and must dismiss the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Question of costs reserved.