Crossan & Anor v Utmission Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 340

Crossan & Anor v Utmission Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 340

Midas was not Utmission's agent for collection of the April 2006 rent. The money taken by Midas was not a payment of rent to Utmission, and the appellants remained in arrears for an additional month's rent included in the 17 September 2007 demand. Because that demand was not fully complied with, Utmission was entitled to re-enter, so the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed without disturbing the District Court orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Tenancy Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal by Leave From District Court Judgment; Cross Appeal by Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; District Court orders not disturbed; no order as to costs of the appeal including the two leave applications; stay granted until 31 January 2011 for the substantive District Court judgment and limited stay of the costs judgment.
Legal Topics
['commercial Lease' 're Entry for Non Payment of Rent' 'formal Demand' 'agency' 'appeal by Leave' 'cross Appeal']
['property Law' 'leases and Tenancies' 'civil Procedure'] ['commercial Lease' 're Entry for Non Payment of Rent' 'formal Demand' 'agency' 'appeal by Leave' 'cross 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

Commercial Tenancy Appeal and Cross Appeal / Appeal by Leave From District Court Judgment; Cross Appeal by Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was entitled to re-enter the leased premises for default in payment of rent after formal demand.' 'Whether the April 2006 rent had been paid twice so that the demand of 17 September 2007 had been satisfied.' 'Whether Midas received money from the appellants as agent of the respondent landlord.']

Ratio Decidendi

Midas was not Utmission's agent for collection of the April 2006 rent. The money taken by Midas was not a payment of rent to Utmission, and the appellants remained in arrears for an additional month's rent included in the 17 September 2007 demand. Because that demand was not fully complied with, Utmission was entitled to re-enter, so the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed without disturbing the District Court orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; District Court orders not disturbed; no order as to costs of the appeal including the two leave applications; stay granted until 31 January 2011 for the substantive District Court judgment and limited stay of the costs judgment.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Cross-appeal allowed.' 'No order as to costs of the appeal including the two applications for leave, on the basis that each side shall pay their own costs.' 'The substantive judgment in the District Court is stayed until 31 January 2011.' 'The costs judgment is stayed save, so far as may be...