Parliv Pty Limited & Ors v Fast Feast Pty Limited & Ors [2008] NSWADT 298

Parliv Pty Limited & Ors v Fast Feast Pty Limited & Ors [2008] NSWADT 298

The Tribunal has power to summarily dismiss part of a claim under s 73(5)(h) of the ADT Act. The respondent's claim for damages in paragraph 13(a) was lacking in substance because there was no evidence that the respondent would have been entitled to complete the sale contract; accordingly, summary judgment should be given for the applicants on that part of the claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment in Retail Lease Proceedings / Interlocutory (notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Applicants with respect to paragraph 13(a) of the First Respondent's Cross-Application for Original Decision; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'lease Disputes' 'claim for Damages' 'interpretation of Statutory Powers']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'lease Disputes' 'claim for Damages' 'interpretation of Statutory Powers']

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

Application for Summary Judgment in Retail Lease Proceedings / Interlocutory (notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal has power to summarily dismiss part of a claim under section 73 of the ADT Act' "Whether the respondent's claim for damages is lacking in substance such that it should be summarily dismissed"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has power to summarily dismiss part of a claim under s 73(5)(h) of the ADT Act. The respondent's claim for damages in paragraph 13(a) was lacking in substance because there was no evidence that the respondent would have been entitled to complete the sale contract; accordingly, summary judgment should be given for the applicants on that part of the claim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Applicants with respect to paragraph 13(a) of the First Respondent's Cross-Application for Original Decision; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Summary judgment is given in favour of the Applicants with respect to paragraph 13(a) of the First Respondent's Cross-Application for Original Decision." 'Costs are reserved.']