Brittain & ors v Tylo Vision Pty Ltd & De Souza [2011] NSWADT 110

Brittain & ors v Tylo Vision Pty Ltd & De Souza [2011] NSWADT 110

The evidence established Tribunal jurisdiction and that the Respondents were liable for rent arrears, further rent to 4 March 2011, interest, locksmith charges, and a nominal allowance for rectification works, while the Second Respondent had guaranteed the First Respondent's relevant debts and was jointly and severally liable. The rectification and painting claim was not sufficiently proved beyond a nominal allowance, real estate agent fees were disallowed as costs, and only wasted legal costs of $1,903 were awarded because it was fair to compensate the Applicants for costs incurred in considering the Respondents' acknowledgement of debt and repayment proposals.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Compensation and Costs Claim / Ex Parte Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The Applicants obtained compensation and a contribution to costs against both Respondents jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Breach of Retail Lease' 'rent Arrears' 'guarantee Liability' 'holding Over After Lease Expiry' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
['retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['compensation for Breach of Retail Lease' 'rent Arrears' 'guarantee Liability' 'holding Over After Lease Expiry' '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 Compensation and Costs Claim / Ex Parte Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondents were liable to pay compensation and damages to the Applicants under the retail lease.' 'Whether the Second Respondent was jointly and severally liable as guarantor for debts of the First Respondent.' 'Whether amounts claimed for rent arrears, further rent, interest, locksmith charges, rectification and painting expenses were established.' 'Whether the Applicants should recover real estate agent fees and legal costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established Tribunal jurisdiction and that the Respondents were liable for rent arrears, further rent to 4 March 2011, interest, locksmith charges, and a nominal allowance for rectification works, while the Second Respondent had guaranteed the First Respondent's relevant debts and was jointly and severally liable. The rectification and painting claim was not sufficiently proved beyond a nominal allowance, real estate agent fees were disallowed as costs, and only wasted legal costs of $1,903 were awarded because it was fair to compensate the Applicants for costs incurred in considering the Respondents' acknowledgement of debt and repayment proposals.

Court Disposition

The Applicants obtained compensation and a contribution to costs against both Respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • ['The First Respondent Tylo Vision Pty Ltd and the Second Respondent Jerome De Souza are each jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of $46,957.43 to the Applicants as compensation.' "The First and Second Respondents are also to jointly and severally to pay the sum of $1,903 to the Applicants as contribution...