Gunaretnam v Mason [2004] NSWADT 266

Gunaretnam v Mason [2004] NSWADT 266

Mrs Gunaretnam was not entitled to relief or compensation because the Tribunal found that, after allowing for the bond, $2,310.00 in rent remained outstanding for the two shops and that she was more than 14 days in arrears when the landlord re-entered under cl.31(i). Her shutter doors claim failed because the shutters were installed primarily for her own purposes without the landlord's request or approval. Mr Mason's claim failed because, although he could claim rent outstanding at termination and damages for loss of bargain, he did not provide evidence of post-termination loss, mitigation steps, re-letting, or re-letting rent. Costs were refused because no special circumstances were shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute; Claim for Payment of Money and Claim for Relief From Payment of Money / Principal Matter Before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Retail Leases Division
Outcome
Both applications dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['rent Arrears' 'lock Out and Termination of Lease' 'relief From Payment of Money' 'damages for Breach of Lease' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
['retail Leases' 'property Law' 'tribunal Procedure' 'costs'] ['rent Arrears' 'lock Out and Termination of Lease' 'relief From Payment of Money' 'damages for Breach of Lease' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']

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; Claim for Payment of Money and Claim for Relief From Payment of Money / Principal Matter Before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Retail Leases Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mrs Gunaretnam was entitled to relief from payment of rent demanded by the landlord's agent." 'Whether the lock out from Shop 3 gave rise to compensation for Mrs Gunaretnam.' 'Whether Mrs Gunaretnam was entitled to compensation for shutter doors installed at Shop 3.' 'Whether Mr Mason proved an entitlement to outstanding rent or damages after termination of the lease.' 'Whether there were special circumstances warranting an order for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Gunaretnam was not entitled to relief or compensation because the Tribunal found that, after allowing for the bond, $2,310.00 in rent remained outstanding for the two shops and that she was more than 14 days in arrears when the landlord re-entered under cl.31(i). Her shutter doors claim failed because the shutters were installed primarily for her own purposes without the landlord's request or approval. Mr Mason's claim failed because, although he could claim rent outstanding at termination and damages for loss of bargain, he did not provide evidence of post-termination loss, mitigation steps, re-letting, or re-letting rent. Costs were refused because no special circumstances were shown.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Mrs Gunaretnam's application is dismissed." "Mr Mason's application is dismissed." 'No order as to costs.']