NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Celermajer Holdings Pty Ltd v Kopas [2011] NSWSC 40 Hearing dates: 2-5, 9 & 10 August 2010 Decision date: 09 February 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Ward J Decision: Declaration that no equitable life tenancy and order for removal of caveat. As revised, orders for termination of tenancy and possession. Catchwords: LANDLORD AND TENANT - whether owner of residential premises is entitled to possession as against the long term occupants of those premises - whether the defendants have an equitable life tenancy of the premises - HELD - no equitable life tenancy - the nature of the defendants' tenancy of the premises - whether the premises are controlled premises, and the tenant a 'protected tenant', under the operation of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 (NSW) - HELD - the first defendant is the sole tenant pursuant to a periodic monthly tenancy at common law on the terms of a previous holding-over tenancy - as revised, the plaintiff has established that the premises are not controlled premises and that the tenant is not a 'protected tenant' under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 (NSW) - notice of termination valid under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) - plaintiff entitled to possession Legislation Cited: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW) Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 (NSW) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Part 14.14) Cases Cited: Abrahams v Senes & Berger [1963] NSWR 1073 Adavale Realty Pty Ltd v Williams, Glenn & Ors. [1996] NSWRT 190 Angaston & District Hospital v Thamm (1987) 47 SASR 177 Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 Barilla v James [1964-65] NSWR 741 Borambil Pty Ltd v O'Carroll [1972] 2 NSWLR 302 Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353 Chan v Cresdon (1989) 168 CLR 242 De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch D 286 Di Salvio v Manthorpe [1965] NSWR 360 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Alamain Investments Ltd [2003] SASC 415 Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218 Ex parte Stern; Re Harrington [1965] NSWR 93 Firth v Staines [1897] 2 QB 70 Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420 Freeman and Lockyer (a firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 630 Greco v Swinburne Ltd [1991] 1 VR 304 Hancock v B W Brazier (Anerley) Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 901 Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd v London and Northwestern Railway Co [1917] 2 KB 755 Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 147 LT 503 Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 810 Ingot Capital Investments Pty Limited v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Limited [2008] NSWCA 206 May v Ceedive Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSCA 369
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