Harbourside Catering Pty Ltd v TMG Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1375

Harbourside Catering Pty Ltd v TMG Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1375

TMG was entitled to refuse consent to the proposed assignments because Harbourside failed to demonstrate that Manly Cove or Amancha had retailing skills in operating a comparable restaurant business that were not inferior to Harbourside's. The refusals were not shown to have been actuated by bad faith, improper purpose, an attempt to extract settlement or key money, or other unconscionable conduct. In any event, Harbourside failed to prove the quantum of damages because it retained and continued to operate the restaurant business and did not prove that the business became valueless or diminished in value due to the refusals.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Retail Shop Lease Dispute Concerning Refusal of Lessor's Consent to Assignment of Lease / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiff's Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['consent to Assignment of Lease' 'retailing Skills Under S 39(1)(b) Retail Leases Act 1994 (nsw)' 'good Faith' 'improper Purpose' 'key Money' 'damages']
['landlord and Tenant' 'retail Leases' 'equity' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'contract'] ['consent to Assignment of Lease' 'retailing Skills Under S 39(1)(b) Retail Leases Act 1994 (nsw)' 'good Faith' 'improper Purpose' 'key Money' 'damages']

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 Shop Lease Dispute Concerning Refusal of Lessor's Consent to Assignment of Lease / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether TMG was entitled under s 39(1)(b) Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) and clause 21.3 of the lease to refuse consent to assignment to Manly Cove because its retailing skills were inferior to Harbourside's." 'What constitutes "retailing skills" for the purposes of s 39(1)(b) Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW).' "Whether TMG's refusals of consent to assignment were actuated by bad faith, improper purpose, vindictiveness, a desire to choose its own tenant, or an attempt to extract settlement of District Court proceedings or key money." "Whether TMG was entitled to refuse consent to assignment to Amancha because Amancha's relevant retailing skills were inferior to Harbourside's." 'Whether Harbourside proved the quantum of any damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

TMG was entitled to refuse consent to the proposed assignments because Harbourside failed to demonstrate that Manly Cove or Amancha had retailing skills in operating a comparable restaurant business that were not inferior to Harbourside's. The refusals were not shown to have been actuated by bad faith, improper purpose, an attempt to extract settlement or key money, or other unconscionable conduct. In any event, Harbourside failed to prove the quantum of damages because it retained and continued to operate the restaurant business and did not prove that the business became valueless or diminished in value due to the refusals.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiff's Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ["Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiff's Second Further Amended Statement of Claim." 'The Court will hear the parties as to costs.']