Polley v Shoj [2006] NSWADT 355

Polley v Shoj [2006] NSWADT 355

The Applicants were plainly entitled to the outstanding rent and proved the repainting cost, but they did not prove the cost of making good the ceiling or plumbing damage because the invoices and evidence did not separate make good costs from supply and installation of replacement items. After crediting the surplus...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Claim for Payment of Money in the Retail Leases Division / Principal Matter Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Application allowed in part; Respondent ordered to pay $2,799.00; no order for costs.
Legal Topics
['unpaid Rent' "tenant's Fixtures" 'make Good Obligations' 'damages' 'costs']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law'] ['unpaid Rent' "tenant's Fixtures" 'make Good Obligations' 'damages' 'costs']

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

Claim for Payment of Money in the Retail Leases Division / Principal Matter Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicants were entitled to unpaid rent for February and March 2006.' "Whether the Respondent was liable for damage caused by removing tenant's fixtures from the premises." 'Whether the Applicants proved the cost of making good ceiling and plumbing damage.' 'Whether the Applicants were entitled to repainting costs, costs or interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants were plainly entitled to the outstanding rent and proved the repainting cost, but they did not prove the cost of making good the ceiling or plumbing damage because the invoices and evidence did not separate make good costs from supply and installation of replacement items. After crediting the surplus bank guarantee, the Respondent was liable for $2,799.00 by way of debt and damages.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; Respondent ordered to pay $2,799.00; no order for costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Section 72(i)(a) Respondent to pay Applicant by way of debt and damages $2,799.00' 'No order for costs.']