Denis Isler v Damien John Toon and Kylie Joy Peterson [2015] NSWCATCD 29

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Denis Isler v Damien John Toon and Kylie Joy Peterson [2015] NSWCATCD 29 Hearing dates: 27 January 2015 Decision date: 13 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Bluth Senior Member Decision: The bond filed by the Department of Trade & Investment no. 4471 for $3,336.68 plus interest relating to premises 80 Hutton Road, The Entrance North be paid to Denis Isler. Damien John Toon and Kylie Joy Peterson are to pay to Denis Isler the balance of monies owing under Lease A1223572 after deduction of the monies received under Order 1. Catchwords: Law Society Commercial Lease, order to do work by an Authority Category: Principal judgment Parties: Denis Isler (applicant) Damien John Toon and Kylie Joy Peterson (respondent) Representation: George Brand Real Estate (applicant) Panwar Legal (respondent) File Number(s): COM 14/46175 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

Entry into the lease 1. The Applicant Dennis Isler (Mr Isler) is the owner of a property at 80 Hutton Road, The Entrance North, being lock-up shop (the premises). 2. The Respondents are Damien John Toon and Kylie Joyce Petersen (the lessees). The parties entered into a lease, based on the form of commercial lease of the Law Society of New South Wales, for 3 years over the premises (the lease). The commencing date of the lease was 23 September 2013. The annual rent was $18,200.00 and the lessees were to pay 50% of the shared outgoings of local council rates and water, sewerage and drainage charges and a 100% of the trade waste. The default interest rate under the lease is 15%. 3. The lessees paid a bond equal to 2 months rent and outgoings in the sum of $3,336.68. The lease was registered under dealing number A1223572. 4. On 19 September 2014 Mr Isler filed an Application for an Original Decision stating that the lessees terminated the lease pursuant to rights under clause 8.24 on the grounds of 'non-repair of damage to the property'. As this matter came for hearing on the papers the orders sought by Mr Isler varied slightly from those sought in the original application. As this ultimately was a dispute over the interpretation of clauses in the lease no hearing was required and the matter was to be adjudicated based on the papers and submissions. 5. The submissions were the correspondence between the lessees, originally represented by lawyers Panwar Legal and subsequently by Richardson Legal, and the agent George Brand Real Estate, representing Mr Isler.