Moon v Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre [2011] NSWADT 221

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Moon v Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre [2011] NSWADT 221 Hearing dates: 12 August 2011 Decision date: 15 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Retail Leases Division Before: D Bluth, Judicial member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs Catchwords: Unconscionable conduct Legislation Cited: Retail Leases Act, 1994 Cases Cited: New South Wales v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557

Armstrong Management Pty Ltd v Saies -Bond & Associates Pty Limited (2002) NSW ADTAP at 47

Horwood v Memocorp Australia Pty Limited (2000) NSWADT 69 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christine Moon (Applicant) Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre Pty Limited (Respondent) Representation: Counsel S Maybury (Respondent) C Moon (Applicant in person) O'Sullivan Saddington (Respondent) File Number(s): 095162

REasons for decision 1This is an application for Original Decision by the Applicant Christine Moon being an amended retail tenancy claim and unconscionable conduct claim under Sections 71 and 71A of the Retail Leases Act , 1994 ( RLA ). The Respondent is Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre Pty Limited.

Background 2Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre is a small subregional shopping centre north of Newcastle which comprises 10 shops and a Coles Supermarket. It is common ground that the Respondent as part of a group of companies owned by the GWH Group ( GWH ) construct and subsequently operate shopping centres. GWH constructed this shopping centre at Tanilba Bay, now owned and operated by the Respondent. 3Bean Coffee Pty Limited owned by GWH operated within three GWH shopping centres. GWH coffee shops called ( Bean Coffee ). 4In September 2008 GWH advertised for a manager of the Bean Coffee shop at Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre. 5The Applicant responded to the advertisement and started employment with Bean Coffee as manager of the shop. 6On or about 9 March 2009 the Applicant was approached by the personnel manager of GWH, Mr Albert Pipan and was asked whether she was interested in taking over Bean Coffee Tanilba Bay. 7After some discussion, agreement was reached and the Applicant signed a lease ( the lease ) for a term of five years with the Respondent for Shop 4 Tanilba Bay Shopping Centre ( the Premises ) and took over the business. 8Bean Coffee Tanilba Bay proved not successful and after interlocutory proceedings before this Tribunal, the Applicant vacated the Premises on 18 December 2009. 9Subsequently the Respondent relet the Premises to a lessee who now operates a dress shop. 10The Applicant's claim is that as a result of taking over the business of Bean Coffee Tanilba Bay and leasing the Premises under the Lease, the Applicant suffered significant financial loss and damages.