BELLOS v AMP [1999] NSWCA 385

Reported Decision : (2000) NSW ConvR 55-944

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : BELLOS v AMP [1999] NSWCA 385 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40428/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 29.4.99, 10.5.99 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 October 1999

PARTIES : ANASTASIOS BELLOS & ANOR v AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Powell JA at 17; Beazley JA at 18

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 21103/96; 11204/97 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Dowd J

COUNSEL : Appellant - In Person Respondent - J E Robson SOLICITORS : Appellant - In Person Respondent - Mallesons Stephen Jaques CATCHWORDS : UNCOLLECTED GOODS ACT 1995 - GOODS LEFT ON PREMISES AT TERMINATION OF LEASE - ORDERS MADE UNDER ACT - WHETHER ORDERS VALID ACTS CITED : Uncollected Goods Act 1995 Retail Leases Act 1994 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40428/97 CLD 21103/96 CLD 11204/97 HANDLEY JA POWELL JA BEAZLEY JA

20 October 1999

ANASTASIOS BELLOS & ANOR v AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY

JUDGMENT UNCOLLECTED GOODS ACT 1995 - goods left on premises at termination of lease - orders made under Act - whether orders valid

The appellants had leased premises from the respondent for use as a model ship museum. Disputes arose between the parties over the level of asbestos in the premises, and the appellants purported to suspend payment of rent under the lease by a letter to the respondent. The respondent terminated the lease for non-payment of rent and gave notice to the appellants, pursuant to the lease, to remove their goods. The goods were not removed by the appellants and eventually the respondent placed them in storage. The respondent applied for relief by way of a summons under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995. The Judge found that the goods were uncollected and made a declaration that the respondent was entitled to sell them by public auction and be reimbursed for the cost of their removal, storage and sale. The appellants challenged the trial Judge's findings on a number of grounds.