NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Rob Nichol Pty Ltd v Australia NID Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 860 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11200/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 31 August 2000
PARTIES : Rob Nichol Pty Limited (Appellant) Australia NID Pty Limited (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Studdert J
LOWER COURT Local Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 34/96 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT R. Wakely JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : R.R. Harper/J. Gillespie (Appellant) C.R. Burge (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Edmunds & Company (Appellant) Vandeness & Scott (Respondent) LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Forslind v Bechely-Crundall (1922) SC (HL) 173 CASES CITED : Laurinda Pty Limited v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) 166 CLR 623 Satellite Estate Pty Limited v Jaquet (1968) 71 SR 126 DECISION : See para 24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Thursday 31 August 2000 11200/98 ROB NICHOL PTY LIMITED v AUSTRALIA NID PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by way of stated case. 2 The appellant, which company was the plaintiff in the Local Court, sought the relief identified in the amended stated case as being "for unpaid rent and expenses for breach and repudiation of a lease". 3 It appears from the stated case in its amended form (and it is to that amended document that I will subsequently refer) that the respondent owned land at Salamander Bay known as Horizons Estate and that the respondent was developing a residential estate and golf course there. It entered into an agreement with the appellant builder to sell to the latter a lot in that estate, with a view to the appellant building an exhibition home on it to be then leased back to the respondent for use in its development project. In an exchange of letters referred to in paras 5 and 6 of the amended stated case, the appellant wrote: "It is agreed that our client company shall have the right of access to the dwelling to be erected, for the purpose of the introduction of potential building clients and the display of our client's activities and the promotion of the building of the homes generally by our client company. Our client acknowledges that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the premises by your client."
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate