Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Kriletich [2012] NSWADT 26

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Kriletich [2012] NSWADT 26 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 17 February 2012 Jurisdiction: Retail Leases Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: Nick Kriletich is to pay Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd's costs of and incidental to these proceedings as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Retail Tenancy Claim - costs Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131 Chronopoulos v Carossel (No 2) Pty Limited [2010] NSWADT 236 Meriton Properties Pty Ltd v DCM Leases-Five Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 11 Profilio v Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2011] NSWADT 64 Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1 Salon Today Pty Limited v MMIR Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 71 Whyte v Brosch and Others [1998] 45 NSWLR 354 Category: Costs Parties: Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (Applicant) Nick Ted Kriletich (Respondent) Representation: Shaw Reynolds Bowen and Gerathy (Applicant) GP Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 115009 and 115042

REasons for decision 1GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): These proceedings relate to a lease ("the Lease") entered between Mr Kriletich and Dee Why Projects Pty Ltd ("DW Projects") for the premises known as Shop 32A Dee Why Grand Plaza, 834 Pittwater Road, Dee Why NSW ("the Premises"). The Premises are part of the property known as the Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre. The Lease was for a term of five years commencing on 29 July 2010 and terminating on 28 July 2015. Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd ("the Applicant") purchased the Centre from DW Projects on 31 August 2010. 2It is not in dispute that the Lease is governed by the Retail Leases Act 1994 ("the Act"). 3In December 2010 the Applicant issued a Notice of Breach of Covenant pursuant to section 129 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 to Mr Kriletich ("the Respondent") and put the Respondent on notice that there had been a breach of an essential term of the Lease. 4The Applicant failed to comply with the Notice and on 28 January 2011 the Applicant re-entered and took possession of the Premises. The Respondent filed the application in matter No. 115009 on 4 February 2011. In his application the Respondent sought orders for relief against forfeiture of the lease and various orders in relation to the fit out of the premises. 5Matter No. 115042 was filed in March 2011. In that application the Applicant sought orders in relation to rent arrears, loss of rent and other costs. 6At the hearing of the matter on 1 August 2011, Mr Gelonesi withdrew the application in matter No. 115009. In matter No. 115042 I ordered that the Respondent was to pay the Applicant the amount of $26,998.22, payable immediately, for interest on arrears and shortfall of rent, loss of rent, removal fees, storage fees and centre management costs. 7The Applicant sought an order for costs in both matters No. 115042 and No. 115009. I set a timetable for the filing of submissions in regard to costs and the parties agreed that the matter of costs would be determined on the papers. 8The Applicant filed submissions in compliance with that timetable. The Respondent did not. The Respondent has filed no submissions.