28 Dec 2018
The Break Clause was valid and enforceable; the respondent repeatedly defaulted on rent and did not establish good cause for a second relief against forfeiture under s21F; the landlord satisfied repair obligations regarding the electricity supply and was not obliged to upgrade to 3-phase; accordingly possession was ordered and mesne profits awarded.
2 Jun 2006
The court allowed the appeal in relation to the Masters grant of summary judgment, set aside the summary judgment orders and granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend because a triable issue existed that the earlier service of writ may have determined the tenancy and therefore could preclude reliance on the break clause; the defendant's strike-out appeal was dismissed as not a plain and obvious abuse of process.
23 Dec 1983
Court found the agent's promise to wax polish constituted a collateral warranty breached by defendant; damages limited to loss of enjoyment for period until polishing ($8,423.74) plus cost of polishing ($1,200 incorporated into award), plaintiff validly exercised break clause so tertiary year rent did not bind him, statutory continuation under the Ordinance was not established nor applied, continuing occupation was without landlord consent, and clause 5 deposit was a penal forfeiture enforceable in the circumstances because plaintiff's breaches (long withholding of rent and failure to yield u…