Dargay Pty Ltd v Comprador Properties (Qld) Pty Ltd [2002] RSLT 12

1 [2002] RSLT 12 THE RETAIL SHOP LEASES ACT In the matters of Dispute No 56/02 DARGAY PTY LIMITED - Claimant - and – COMPRADOR PROPERTIES (QLD) PTY LIMITED - Respondent Coram: A Forbes (CHAIRMAN) DECISION Given in Brisbane on Monday 4 November, 2002. -- 1 of 2 -- 56/02 2 Decision In this matter, the tenant lodged a Notice of Dispute on 8th August, 2002. The tenant raised eight heads of claim: a disruption to trading; defects in the premises not rectified; access to customers restricted; and a failure on the landlord’s part to take steps to stop the disruption; and certain other losses concerning causing the premises to be unsuitable for business. The tenant seeks relief of rent, a reduction of rent, and compensation. The first two forms of relief, it is conceded by Mr Bathesby for the tenant, who did not appear at the first directions hearing but has now been retained by the tenant, the first two forms of relief are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was clear until certain information was given to me this morning that the claim for compensation is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is a live issue. The respondent landlord raised jurisdiction on the basis that it has issued a s.124 Notice against the tenant, or served a s.124 Notice under the Property Law Act on 29th July, the notice being issued on 21st May. That was followed by a claim in the District Court being filed by the landlord on 27th June, 2002, to which claim the tenant has pleaded in defence and has filed a counter-claim. I am advised that the claim essentially concerns arrears of rent and another claim against the tenant as a guarantor under the lease. The counter-claim essentially traverses the matters raised in the Tribunal, that is, it claims compensation, but it brings that under the rubric of the Trade Practices Act and a claim in equity. After I’d heard submissions from both legal representatives, it turned out that they were in agreement in requesting the Tribunal to transfer the Notice of Dispute to the District Court, which of course I am content to do. My order therefore will be: 1. That the Notice of Dispute No. 56/2002 lodged on 8th August, 2002, be removed in whole to the District Court at Maroochydore. A Forbes, Chairman. -- 2 of 2 --