Adlam & Ors v Bonniebrook Pty Ltd [1996] RSLT 18

___________________________________________________________________________ [1996] QRSLT 18 RETAIL SHOP LEASES ACT In the matter of Dispute Nos 55, 58, 62 and 63 of 1995 PAUL ANTHONY RICHARD ADLAM, LINA WOOD & GLENGAIR PTY LIMITED and ACTIONIT PTY LIMITED - Claimants -and- BONNIEBROOK PTY LIMITED - Respondent DECISION Given on Friday, 12 April 1996in Brisbane _____________________________________________________________________________ _ -- 1 of 2 -- 2 I have previously dealt with issues raised in these matters and given some rulings. The effect of my rulings was that it is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear and determine a claim by a Respondent for an indemnity against its agent. I intimated that the procedure to be followed was by the Respondent filing and delivering a Notice of Dispute claiming an indemnity against the agent. The matter would then follow the course set out under the Retail Shop Leases Act, i.e., it would be referred to a mediator who would attempt mediation and, if unsuccessful, refer the matter to the Tribunal. The original application before me was for leave for the Respondent to take third party proceedings against the agent. My ruling was as indicated above. I was not then told that the lease in some of the claims had expired more than four months before my ruling and proceedings could not be taken in this Tribunal by the Respondent against the agent. A further application was then made for leave to take third party proceedings, being in effect a repeat of the original proceedings. There are strong practical considerations in favour of third party proceedings being heard together with the original claims, the most important being the prevention of duplication at proceedings. Because of these practical considerations, I have sought the further assistance of Counsel and have myself sought to find some acceptable way of allowing third party proceedings. I have not been able to do so, and come to the conclusion that the only way the agent can be brought in is by a fresh Notice of Dispute by the Respondent. The time for doing so has passed in respect of some of the Claimants. With regard to those Claimants who may still take such proceedings, I shall, if requested at a proper stage, give consideration to the Claimants' action and the Respondent's action against the agent being heard at the same time. I indicate that I am not influenced by the somewhat unusual and questionable action of the agent's (i.e. proposed third party's) solicitor to review any order I may make against the agent. P. Loewenthal J. Chairman -- 2 of 2 --