31 May 2022
The court awarded 2B scale costs of $14,579 plus $100 disbursements and increased those costs by 50% (an additional $7,289.50) under r 14.6(3)(b)(ii) because the respondent continued to take unnecessary steps and arguments; the respondent's representative being a guarantor and a lay litigant did not mitigate the award of uplifted costs.
27 Apr 2022
The statutory requirements of s245 were satisfied (rent in arrears more than ten days, notice given, default not remedied); acceptance of rent after notice did not waive the lessor's right; the defendants did not seek relief under s253; accordingly the Court grants possession and cancels the lease under s251(1).
26 Nov 2021
The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Brewer J's judgment and the sealed orders clearly cancelled the lease, Hum was given notice and remained in occupation, and there was no reasonable excuse for non‑compliance; accordingly the discretionary power to issue an arrest order was properly exercised and an order for the arrest of director Roseanne Armitage was made to lie in Court until 8 February 2022, to be quashed if the property is vacated before that date.
13 Apr 2021
A stay of possession pending the Court of Appeal's decision on an application for extension of time to appeal was warranted to avoid rendering any appeal nugatory, but the stay must be conditional to prevent prejudice to the applicant; conditions imposed required Hum to make specified rental and rates payments on defined dates and a 10 working day cure period for defaults, and enforcement of a statutory demand was not stayed.
18 Aug 2020
Although the tenant's breach in failing to obtain consent was deliberate and serious, Hillcrest suffered no financial or reputational loss, the subtenant performed well, and cancellation would cause disproportionate and severe loss to Taste of Asia; accordingly relief against forfeiture was granted and Hillcrest's possession application dismissed, subject to conditions requiring formal consent process for the sublease.
27 May 2019
Because the respondent had not paid rent since October 2018, had not filed any opposition, and failed to engage in the process except at the last minute, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the applicant's amended orders: cancellation of the lease and transfer of possession on 1 July 2019, with updated costs as specified in the applicant's memorandum.
4 Apr 2019
Applicants were overall the successful parties because they established serious unremedied breaches entitling cancellation; respondent obtained conditional relief only by undertaking to remedy breaches, and interlocutory costs awarded to respondent were set off against applicants' recovery, resulting in a net award to applicants of $12,466.
28 Nov 2018
Leave to proceed by way of originating application was granted because the respondent did not oppose the procedure and the primary issues were confined to whether a power existed under the lease to cancel in defined circumstances; although the background is factually dense, the court accepted the matter could proceed on originating application on that understanding.
20 Nov 2018
The lease had validly terminated and, under s 210, the respondent's continued occupation was a tenancy at will terminable by 20 working days' written notice which was validly given; the Court granted the necessary permission to commence the originating application, the respondent filed no opposition, and therefore the applicants were entitled to possession, cancellation of the lease and indemnity costs.
10 Sept 2018
The Court granted summary judgment against the former lessees (Jackson, Letica, Fox and Fox) for outstanding rent $662,729.86, insurance premiums $52,151.05 and interest to 3 February 2016 $241,751.85 and awarded contractual default interest at 20% p.a. from 4 February 2016 to date, holding that (a) the deeds of covenant imposed continuing liability subject to limitation, (b) Property Law Act s233 did not bar the Trust because the lease had been cancelled before sale so no reversion expectant existed for a purchaser to step into, (c) mitigation and Fair Trading Act defences did not raise an a…