Uckan v Verdi Pty Limited (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 180

Uckan v Verdi Pty Limited (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 180

Because the lessee vacated the premises and failed to pay rent, the lessee unlawfully repudiated the lease and the Applicants accepted that repudiation. The Applicants proved recoverable losses for rent arrears, outgoings, limited rectification work, lost rent until 2 January 2012, an agent's reletting fee and interest, but did not prove entitlement to increased insurance premiums or damages for installation of an ATM machine. The guarantee extended to the awarded damages, so all Respondents were liable. No costs order was made because the Applicants' conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute / Further Hearing on Damages Following Prior Reasons and Alleged Repudiation of Lease
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay the Applicants $83,910.40 inclusive of interest; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['repudiation of Lease' 'damages for Breach of Lease' 'arrears of Rent and Outgoings' 'rectification Costs' "guarantors' Liability" 'costs']
['retail Leases' 'contract Law' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['repudiation of Lease' 'damages for Breach of Lease' 'arrears of Rent and Outgoings' 'rectification Costs' "guarantors' Liability" 'costs']

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 Lease Dispute / Further Hearing on Damages Following Prior Reasons and Alleged Repudiation of Lease

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the lessee's vacation of the premises and failure to pay rent constituted an unlawful repudiation of the lease accepted by the Applicants." "What damages were recoverable for arrears of rent, outgoings, rectification work, lost rent, reletting agent's fee, increased insurance premiums, and installation of an ATM machine." 'Whether the guarantors were liable for the damages awarded against the lessee.' "Whether the Respondents should pay the Applicants' costs under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the lessee vacated the premises and failed to pay rent, the lessee unlawfully repudiated the lease and the Applicants accepted that repudiation. The Applicants proved recoverable losses for rent arrears, outgoings, limited rectification work, lost rent until 2 January 2012, an agent's reletting fee and interest, but did not prove entitlement to increased insurance premiums or damages for installation of an ATM machine. The guarantee extended to the awarded damages, so all Respondents were liable. No costs order was made because the Applicants' conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay the Applicants $83,910.40 inclusive of interest; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['That the Respondents pay to the Applicants $83,910.40 (inclusive of interest).' 'No order as to costs.']