Makucha v Henaford Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] NSWSC 200

Makucha v Henaford Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] NSWSC 200

On the evidence, the premises were used as an hotel: they were marketed to the travelling public, had a manned reception desk and hotel staff, supplied linen, offered some food and luggage storage, and most rooms were used by short-term guests. The fact that the plaintiff was a long-term occupant and that his room was no longer serviced did not prevent the premises being characterised as a hotel. Accordingly, there was no serious question to be tried that the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 applied. In any event, the balance of convenience did not favour extending the injunction because redevelopment was ready to proceed, the plaintiff was the only remaining occupant on that level,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction / Equity Division Duty List
Outcome
The interim injunction was discharged and not extended; the summons was stood over to the Registrar's List; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the interim injunction application.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'residential Tenancies Act 2010' 'boarding Houses Act 2012' 'meaning of Hotel' 'balance of Convenience']
['equity' 'residential Tenancies'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'residential Tenancies Act 2010' 'boarding Houses Act 2012' 'meaning of Hotel' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Interlocutory Application for Injunction / Equity Division Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 applied to the plaintiff's occupation of room 122 at 75 Wentworth Avenue, Sydney." 'Whether the Boarding Houses Act 2012 assisted the plaintiff in resisting eviction.' 'Whether the premises were used as a hotel.' "Whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's occupation."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the premises were used as an hotel: they were marketed to the travelling public, had a manned reception desk and hotel staff, supplied linen, offered some food and luggage storage, and most rooms were used by short-term guests. The fact that the plaintiff was a long-term occupant and that his room was no longer serviced did not prevent the premises being characterised as a hotel. Accordingly, there was no serious question to be tried that the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 applied. In any event, the balance of convenience did not favour extending the injunction because redevelopment was ready to proceed, the plaintiff was the only remaining occupant on that level,...

Court Disposition

The interim injunction was discharged and not extended; the summons was stood over to the Registrar's List; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the interim injunction application.

Orders

  • ['The order made on 7 March 2013 extending the operation of Order 3 made on 28 February 2013 up to and including 12 March 2013 was discharged.' "The summons was stood over to the Registrar's List at 9.00am on 9 April 2013." "The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the application for the interim...