R & K Developments Pty Ltd v French Villa Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 3

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R & K Developments Pty Ltd v French Villa Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 3 Hearing dates: 18 August 2016 and 24 October 2016 Decision date: 05 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S. Thode, Senior Member Decision: 1 In COM 15/56600 the respondent shall pay to the applicant the sum of $59,828.86 on or before 30 March 2017. 2 Application COM 15/60238 is otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: RETAIL SHOP – lease not executed by co-director - s 129 notice Legislation Cited: Retail Leases Act 1994; Corporations Act 2001 Cases Cited: Blandino & Ors v Giardini and Ors (RLD 2008) NSW ADT; Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353; Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Paley Properties Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] SASFC 103 Category: Principal judgment Parties: R & K Developments Pty Ltd (applicant/cross respondent) French Villa Pty Ltd (respondent/cross applicant) Representation: Ms Lane of Counsel, Ms Bird as Director of French Villa Pty Ltd File Number(s): COM 15/56600; COM 15/60238 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. This is an application and cross-application concerning a retail lease dispute. On 29 September 2015 both proceedings were transferred from the Supreme Court to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). R & K Developments Pty Ltd (the landlord) in its Statement of Claim filed 14 July 2015 sought a declaration it had validly terminated a lease. The landlord alleges that it had entered into a retail lease with French Villa Pty Ltd (the tenant) concerning furniture shop premises in Gregory Hills. The landlord pleads that the parties entered into a lease commencing on 1 April 2015 ending on 31 March 2018 with an option to renew for three years. It was a term of the lease that the rent would be paid one month in advance. After the tenant had failed to comply with the terms of the lease, the landlord terminated the lease. It seeks damages for loss of rent, rectification cost for fit out, interest and costs. The tenant filed a cross claim in the Supreme Court essentially seeking damages for misrepresentation. Both matters were transferred to the Tribunal.