Kriletich v Dee Why Projects Pty Limited [2011] NSWADT 109

Kriletich v Dee Why Projects Pty Limited [2011] NSWADT 109

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had no reasonable basis for the representation regarding exhaust ducting at the time it was made, and failed to prove reliance on that representation when entering the agreement to lease. No evidence established unconscionable conduct by the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Nick Kriletich; Respondent: Dee Why Projects Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy and Unconscionable Conduct Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pre Lease Misrepresentation, Misleading Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Fit Out Requirements Under Lease
Retail Leases Commercial Tenancy Pre Lease Misrepresentation Misleading Conduct Unconscionable Conduct Fit Out Requirements Under Lease

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nick Kriletich

Applicant

Dee Why Projects Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Retail Tenancy and Unconscionable Conduct Claim / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent make false or misleading representations contrary to section 10 and section 62D of the Retail Leases Act 1994?
  2. 2 Did the respondent engage in unconscionable conduct contrary to section 62B of the Retail Leases Act 1994?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had no reasonable basis for the representation regarding exhaust ducting at the time it was made, and failed to prove reliance on that representation when entering the agreement to lease. No evidence established unconscionable conduct by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's retail tenancy and unconscionable conduct claim is dismissed.
  • Any party wishing to make an application for costs is to file and serve short written submissions (including the amount of costs sought) within 14 days of the publication of these reasons for decision.