Mintus Properties Pty Ltd v Sutcliffe & Mort Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 657

Mintus Properties Pty Ltd v Sutcliffe & Mort Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 657

The matter was a retail tenancy dispute, the Tribunal could appropriately and effectively deal with it, no hearing date had been set, affidavit evidence had not been filed, and the interests of justice did not require determination by the Court. Because the preconditions in s 68 had not been satisfied, there was real doubt whether the Court could deal with the matter. Section 75(1) therefore required transfer to the Tribunal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Involving a Retail Tenancy Dispute for Unpaid Rent and Agents' Fees / Application by the Defendants to Transfer Proceedings to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal; costs of the proceedings including costs of the motion to be costs in the Tribunal proceedings.
Legal Topics
['retail Tenancy Dispute' 'transfer to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'mediation Preconditions' 'costs']
['leases and Tenancies' 'civil Procedure'] ['retail Tenancy Dispute' 'transfer to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'mediation Preconditions' '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

Civil Proceedings Involving a Retail Tenancy Dispute for Unpaid Rent and Agents' Fees / Application by the Defendants to Transfer Proceedings to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the dispute was a retail tenancy dispute within the meaning of s 75 of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' 'Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal under s 75(1) of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' 'Whether the interests of justice required the matter to be dealt with by the Court rather than the Tribunal.' 'What costs order should be made for the proceedings and the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The matter was a retail tenancy dispute, the Tribunal could appropriately and effectively deal with it, no hearing date had been set, affidavit evidence had not been filed, and the interests of justice did not require determination by the Court. Because the preconditions in s 68 had not been satisfied, there was real doubt whether the Court could deal with the matter. Section 75(1) therefore required transfer to the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Proceedings transferred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal; costs of the proceedings including costs of the motion to be costs in the Tribunal proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings transferred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to s 75(1) of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' 'Costs of the proceedings including costs of the motion to be costs in the Tribunal proceedings.']