Tate v Unanderra Heights Pty Limited (RLD) [2005] NSWADTAP 5

Tate v Unanderra Heights Pty Limited (RLD) [2005] NSWADTAP 5

The licence agreement, properly construed, was for a one-year term and was a retail shop lease within s 3 of the Retail Leases Act 1994, not excluded by s 6(1)(a). Section 16(4) did not apply because the agreement was not a renewal pursuant to an option conferred by the earlier lease. Any breaches of ss 9 and 11 did...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal order varied by substituting $18,725 for $29,400 as the amount payable.
Legal Topics
['retail Shop Lease' 'minimum 5 Year Term' 'lease Renewal Option' 'disclosure Statement' 'copy of Lease at Negotiation Stage' 'termination by Agreement' 'liability of Non Signing Party']
['retail Leases' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['retail Shop Lease' 'minimum 5 Year Term' 'lease Renewal Option' 'disclosure Statement' 'copy of Lease at Negotiation Stage' 'termination by Agreement' 'liability of Non Signing Party']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the licence agreement was a 'retail shop lease' or a monthly tenancy falling within s 6(1)(a) of the Retail Leases Act 1994." 'Whether the licence agreement fell within the s 16(4) exception because of an option for renewal in the April 1995 lease.' 'Whether failure to provide a draft licence agreement under s 9 prevented the respondent relying on s 16(1).' 'Whether failure to provide a disclosure statement under s 11 prevented the respondent relying on s 16(1).' 'Whether any retail shop lease was terminated by agreement in November 2003.' 'Whether Derek Tate could be held liable although he did not sign the licence agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The licence agreement, properly construed, was for a one-year term and was a retail shop lease within s 3 of the Retail Leases Act 1994, not excluded by s 6(1)(a). Section 16(4) did not apply because the agreement was not a renewal pursuant to an option conferred by the earlier lease. Any breaches of ss 9 and 11 did not prevent operation of s 16(1), because the Act specified their consequences. No termination agreement was formed because the appellants did not accept the respondent's conditional offer by paying its legal and management costs before the offer was withdrawn. There was no basis to disturb liability against Derek Tate. The appeal was therefore dismissed, but the amount was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal order varied by substituting $18,725 for $29,400 as the amount payable.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The Order made by the Tribunal on 12 July 2004 is varied by substituting $18,725 for $29,400 as the amount payable under the Order.' 'Each party has 28 days in which to file and serve an application for the costs of this appeal, with supporting submissions. Any submissions in response...