Online IT Services v Goldberg Enterprises Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 213

Online IT Services v Goldberg Enterprises Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 213

Although the Respondent was entitled to terminate the month-to-month tenancy on one month's notice, after serving the notice it entered into negotiations and held out inducements that the notice would be withdrawn or a new lease considered if the Applicant carried out works. The Respondent then required further work and re-entered while those negotiations and actions were underway. In those circumstances, the Respondent's conduct was unconscionable and the re-entry on 1 July 2008 was wrongful, entitling the Applicant to compensation and release of the bond.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute / Final Decision in the Retail Leases Division
Outcome
The Tribunal declared the re-entry into the premises on 1 July 2008 unlawful and ordered the Respondent to pay compensation and release the bond.
Legal Topics
['wrongful Re Entry' 'termination of Month to Month Tenancy' 'holding Over' 'retail Shop Lease' 'security Bond' 'compensation for Lock Out']
['retail Leases' 'property Law' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'damages'] ['wrongful Re Entry' 'termination of Month to Month Tenancy' 'holding Over' 'retail Shop Lease' 'security Bond' 'compensation for Lock Out']

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 / Final Decision in the Retail Leases Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondent's re-entry into the premises on 1 July 2008 was wrongful or unlawful." 'Whether the Respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct by inducing the Applicant to carry out works while holding out the possibility that the termination notice would be withdrawn or a new lease considered.' 'What compensation, rent refund, relocation costs and bond release should be ordered if the re-entry was wrongful.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Respondent was entitled to terminate the month-to-month tenancy on one month's notice, after serving the notice it entered into negotiations and held out inducements that the notice would be withdrawn or a new lease considered if the Applicant carried out works. The Respondent then required further work and re-entered while those negotiations and actions were underway. In those circumstances, the Respondent's conduct was unconscionable and the re-entry on 1 July 2008 was wrongful, entitling the Applicant to compensation and release of the bond.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal declared the re-entry into the premises on 1 July 2008 unlawful and ordered the Respondent to pay compensation and release the bond.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $15,227.24 plus interest at the prescribed rate from 1 October 2008.' 'In addition to order (i) the Respondent is to release the bond of $1,906.66 to the Applicant.' "There will be no order for costs in these proceedings unless a party files and serves an...