NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Kumaragamage v Rallis [2001] NSWSC 466 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2677/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 21, 28, 30 May & 1 June 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 June 2001
PARTIES : Prabha Ranjanee Kumaragamage and Don Kumaragamage (P1, P2) Charles Silva Rallis and Agnes Rallis (D1, D2) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
COUNSEL : Plaintiffs in person D L Warren (D) SOLICITORS : Slade Manwaring (D) CATCHWORDS : LANDLORD AND TENANT - whether lessee can seek interlocutory relief by denying breach and also seek relief against forfeiture LEGISLATION CITED : Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) ss 85(1)(d), 129 Commissioners of State Revenue (Victoria) v Price Brent Services Pty Ltd (1994) 94 ATC 4672 David Jones Ltd v Leventhal (1927) 27 SR(NSW) 350 Hayes v Gumbola Pty Ltd (1988) NSW ConvR para 55-375 Islam v South Sydney City Council (1989) NSW ConvR para 55-888 CASES CITED : Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 Langley v Foster (1909) 10 SR(NSW) 54 Lock v Pearce [1893] 2 Ch 271 MI Design Pty Ltd v Dunecar Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 996 Tomara Holdings Pty Ltd v Pongrass [1999] NSWSC 1191 Tooth & Co Ltd v Coombes (1925) 42 WN 93 DECISION : Interlocutory application for orders to restore lessees to possession refused
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
AUSTIN J
WEDNESDAY 6 JUNE 2001
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