Mohammed v Shorecolt Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 88

Mohammed v Shorecolt Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 88

The applicant proved an enforceable retail shop lease was entered and the respondent breached it by locking out the applicant, entitling him to restitution of the bond, damages for lost personal items (but not goods to which he had no title), and statutory interest; but insufficient grounds for special circumstances to award costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Claim for Payment of Money / Principal Matter; Ex Parte Hearing
Outcome
Applicant substantially successful—orders for payment of restitution and damages made; application for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Lease' 'damages' 'compensation' 'costs' 'restitution' 'interest']
['retail Leases' 'commercial Law'] ['breach of Lease' 'damages' 'compensation' 'costs' 'restitution' 'interest']

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

Claim for Payment of Money / Principal Matter; Ex Parte Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreement constituted a retail shop lease under the Retail Leases Act 1994' 'Whether the respondent breached the lease by excluding the applicant from possession' 'Entitlement of the applicant to restitution, damages and interest for exclusion and loss of goods' 'Entitlement to a costs order against the respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant proved an enforceable retail shop lease was entered and the respondent breached it by locking out the applicant, entitling him to restitution of the bond, damages for lost personal items (but not goods to which he had no title), and statutory interest; but insufficient grounds for special circumstances to award costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant substantially successful—orders for payment of restitution and damages made; application for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $23,020.00 by way of restitution and damages.' "The Applicant's application for costs against the Respondent is dismissed."]