Cypressvale Pty Ltd & Fernmead Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1994] RSLT 2

1 [1994] QRSLT 2 THE RETAIL SHOP LEASES ACT 1984 In the matter of Dispute Nos. 30/93 and 31/93 CYPRESSVALE PTY LIMITED AND FERNMEAD PTY LIMITED - Tenants - and - AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY - Landlord Coram: P Loewenthal J. - Chairman Mr M Macrae - Member Mrs S Kairl - Member REASONS FOR DECISION Delivered on 12 April, 1994, -- 1 of 16 -- 2 in Brisbane. A. THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS: The claimants both conduct restaurants in the Pacific Fair Shopping Centre (hereinafter referred to as "The Centre"). Their claims are set out in the form of a pleading relying on Section 15 of the Retail Shop Leases Act. They wrongly rely on the present section, when they should have relied on the Section as it applied in April 1986, when their leases were entered into. The Tribunal does not require pleadings, but requires the exchange of witnesses' statements. This was done in this case, and these define the claims. The claims are for compensation for inhibition of access, inhibition or alteration of customer flow, and a significant disruption of trading or failure to terminate such disruption under Section 15(a)(iii) and (iv). As no pleadings are required by the Tribunal, there is no need for any formal amendment. The Tribunal will consider the matters as raised in the statements and at the hearing. The Chairman has previously ruled on the legal interpretation of part of Section 15. He does not repeat that ruling, but for convenience, Section -- 2 of 16 -- 3 15(a) as it read in 1986 is set out hereunder: 15. Implied provisions concerning compensation. In every retail shop lease (other than a periodic tenancy or tenancy at will) of a retail shop that forms part of a retail shopping centre, the following provisions shall be implied:- (a)If the landlord, whether he has the right to do so under the lease or not - (i)relocates the business of a tenant to alternative premises within the centre during the term or any renewal of the term of the lease of the tenant; (ii)inhibits the access of a tenant in the centre to his business in any substantial manner; (iii)takes any action (other than action lawfully required by any statutory body or department of the Government) that would substantially alter or inhibit the flow of customers to any retail shop or retail shops in the centre; (iv) causes to fails to make reasonable efforts to prevent or to remove any disruption to trading within the centre which disruption causes loss of profits to a tenant or tenants in the centre; (v)fails to have rectified as soon as practicable any breakdown of plant or equipment under his care and maintenance which breakdown causes loss of profits to a tenant or tenants in the centre; or (vi) neglects to adequately clean, maintain or repaint the building or buildings which constitute the centre including common areas, then the landlord may be made liable to pay reasonable compensation to the tenant or tenants affected thereby. The Chairman deals hereunder with certain legal issues raised during and at the end of this lengthy hearing. 1.The Existence of a Discretion under s.15(a) as it then read. The meaning of the words, "may be made liable to pay any reasonable compensation," is to be interpreted. The Chairman has had arguments addressed to him where authorities have been quoted as to the meaning of the word "may" where it appears in a statute. He considers that it is not necessary for him to go into -- 3 of 16 -- 4 such authorities in detail. It is sufficient to say that in a statute which contains the word "shall" and the word "may" in close proximity, the normal rule appears to be that the words have different meanings. The Chairman takes into account that this is a remedial statute and the intention is to create a remedy in a wide range of cases. He has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has a discretion but it will only exercise its discretion against the tenant in exceptional circumstances. It is not necessary to define these circumstances by way of principle or example. 2. The words "inhibits or alters the flow of customers" are to be interpreted The meaning of "flow" as it appears in dictionaries is a smooth movement such as in a stream. It was not contended by either party that this was the meaning intended in the statute. This act is concerned with the numbers of potential customers passing the retail shop and not whether they pass it erratically or smoothly. It follows that there must be a reduction of potential customers for their to be an inhibition or alteration. The reduction must be in the number of potential customers passing the shop for a claim to arise. The Chairman has ruled that the section is not concerned with proportion, that is, whether the number of prospective customers passing is a greater or lesser proportion of those coming to The Centre. 3. Set Off: The third question raised by the parties before the Chairman is whether the later benefits of expansion can be set off against earlier losses for which the claimants may be entitled to compensation. Assuming compensable losses are established because of some refurbishment or expansion of The Centre, and the refurbishment or expansion later causes profits, the question is whether such later profits can be set off against earlier losses in assessing compensation. The Chair takes the view that this is a combined question of fact and law, in which the facts are the weightier aspect. Apart from ruling that there may be some circumstances in which there can be some set off, and identifying some of these circumstances, the Chairman makes no final ruling. Circumstances which can give rise to a set off are where the losses and subsequent profits are closely connected in manner, scope and time, so that the -- 4 of 16 -- 5 events giving rise to the losses and the benefits should be looked upon together, possibly but not always as part of the same continuing act. 4. Future increases in pedestrian flow: Can the Tribunal take into account increased flow of potential customers in the future? This relates to the almost certain opening of Target and Toys-R-Us in about October, 1994. The contention is that the flow of potential customers past the two claimants' restaurants will increase substantially. The claimants contend that this is a fortuitous event such as an increase in population, an increase in tourist trade, or an improvement in the economic climate, and it is something for which the respondent landlord cannot claim a benefit. They compare it to a decrease in flow brought about by the converse events or the decline of a large trader. There is evidence that the respondent landlord will have to make and is making substantial structural alterations to the existing McDonnell & East building by way of partitioning, internal lifts and steps, other major internal changes, new entrances and exits and external escalators. The Chairman's ruling follows what he has said above with regard to setting off benefits of expansion. The Tribunal must look at the facts. It is open to the Tribunal to find that at least part of the increase of flow is due to the landlord's actions in the physical sense of building changes and alterations. If the Tribunal does take this aspect into consideration, it must examine what the flow would have been if the respondent had not commenced its program of extensions and refurbishment over the years. 5. The loss of goodwill beyond the term of the lease: The Chairman has been referred to the decision of the High Court in Amman-v-The Commonwealth. The Court in that case discussed the principles to be applied in assessing damages for breach of contract. Fault had been found in the Commonwealth. The claim arose from a three-year contract to provide coastal air surveillance. Amman incurred substantial pre- operational expenses and outlaid substantial capital in obtaining equipment. The Commonwealth wrongfully cancelled the contract. Amman sued for damages for breach of contract. The issue before the Appeal Court and the High Court related to the damages. Amman's contract with the Commonwealth was for a period of three years. Damages were sought to be calculated on the basis of Amman being granted a further contract -- 5 of 16 -- 6 for three years after the expiry of the initial contract. It was found as a fact that Amman would be in a very strong commercial position against any competitors when the time came to obtain a further contract after the expiration of the first contract, based on its having the necessary equipment at a depreciated value. Amman was not in a position to prove what loss it would suffer under the extended contract. It sought a sum to compensate it for the capital it had expended in setting up to perform the first contract, relying on its obtaining a further three year contract. These were classified as "reliance damages." The Chairman interprets the majority decision of the High Court in the following manner: - (a) General principles of assessment of damages apply. (b) No damages can be awarded for loss of a right which Amman did not have, that is, the right to renewal or extension of its first contract. (c) Amman was entitled to confidently expect obtaining an extended contract because of its strong commercial position against competitors. (d) This entitled it to "reliance damages." (e) As the profits to be made on the new contract could not be quantified, it was entitled to be put in the position to which it would have been without breach, which could best be assessed by awarding it its capital loss, i.e., the difference between the setting up expenses and acquisition of aircraft as against their present market value. The Chairman has ruled and directed the Tribunal as a matter of law:- (a) That the claimants are not entitled to be compensated for the loss of a future lease to which they had no legal entitlement; (b) Subject to certain findings of fact, the claimants may be entitled to "reliance damages." These questions of fact are: (i) There was the probability of an extension of a lease being granted. The probability has to be taken into account in assessing any award. (ii) On reliance of this probability, the complainants had expended money. This could be by way of purchase of goodwill or plant or equipment or -- 6 of 16 -- 7 replacement of plant or equipment. (iii) That this money expended by the claimants was lost because of the actions of the respondent and not those of the complainants. (iv) The measure of compensation was that to place the complainants in the same position as if the respondents were not in breach of contract or any obligation. (v) There must be provision for probabilities in assessing any award. B. History The Centre opened in May 1977. Its main tenants were McDonnell & East, which was a department store, Coles Supermarket and K Mart. Lakeside and Le Basin Restaurants were among the original tenants of The Centre. In December 1979, Rogers and others became the tenant of Le Basin by assignment. In March 1982 the Lakeside lease was assigned to Cypressvale Pty Limited, a company controlled by Rogers and others. In August 1992, The Centre was substantially extended to include a Myer Department Store and a Best and Less Store. Coles was substantially expanded and relocated. On 1 May 1986, new leases of ten years were granted in respect of both Lakeside and Le Basin Restaurants. Both restaurants were extensively refurbished as a condition of the granting of new leases. On 1 July 1986, the Le Basin lease was assigned by Rogers and others to Fernmead Pty Limited, a company controlled by Wallace and Others, for $600,000. In 1987, AMP resolved to extend The Centre. In February 1989, construction of a bridge over the Tallebudgera Creek was commenced. From August 1989 to January 1990, there was a pilots' strike throughout Australia. In March 1990, construction commenced in the north-west portion of The Centre, involving Coles Supermarket and a Mobil Service Station at the extreme north-west. Some demolition work was done in the centre or core of The Centre. In mid 1990, there was correspondence between The Centre Management and Wallace about compensation and the granting of a new lease. The respondent was prepared to grant a new lease, subject to Le Basin Restaurant being refurbished. On 23 September 1991, the new and greatly expanded Myer store opened. In October 1991, the Food Market -- 7 of 16 -- 8 opened. Specialty shops, in particular food shops, which had been in the vicinity of Basin Street, that is, in the core of The Centre, were moved to the Food Market. From this time onwards, there was a decline in McDonnell & East, which finally closed for business in January 1994. This decline was in line with other branches of McDonnell & East elsewhere throughout the State. C. Future Probabilities The Tribunal finds that it is highly likely that two new businesses will open in the premises previously occupied by McDonnell & East. These businesses are Target Stores and a store called "Toys R Us." The premises previously occupied by McDonnell & East are being altered substantially both internally and externally. Target anticipates an initial annual turnover of approximately $20m, with average sales of about $50, that is, some 400,000 sales will be made per year, and each sale will involve approximately about three people visiting the store. Toys-R-Us will have a turnover of approximately $14m per annum, and an average sale of $35, that is a further 400,000 sales. Between these two new stores, they will have a custom of approximately 2.4m persons per year, calculated on the rate of three persons per each sale. Even taking a discount figure into account, some of these customers will be common to both stores - this will cause a large pedestrian flow into the north-west section of the shopping centre, extending to the core or central section as customers find their way back to other large stores such as Myer or K Mart. Some or most of these customers will use existing major traffic routes through Oxley Square and Tallebudgera Way or southwards to Rue Montmartre, and then eastwards towards K Mart and Myer, but a substantial number will filter through the core area, increasing the flow of potential customers passing both Lakeside and Le Basin. We find as a strong probability that both claimants will take immediate steps to obtain assignees of their existing leases and, on obtaining such assignees, will then assign the leases. The representatives of AMP, the respondent landlord, have made it quite clear that the respondent will not grant new leases to either claimant. Their reasons for doing so are several, including not regarding the claimants as suitable traders, their failure to refurbish, lack of co- operation from the claimants, and the bringing of these proceedings. However, the respondent is obliged to allow assignment of the existing leases on the usual terms and conditions relating to an intended -- 8 of 16 -- 9 assignee under the terms of their existing leases. In terms of its defined policy, the new assignees will be in a strong position to expect the granting of new lengthy leases, subject to substantial refurbishment of the restaurants, and probably subject to relocation of Le Basin Restaurant to other premises in the Centre. We regard this probability as particularly strong, as AMP is a large public company having extensive dealings with the public in insurance, where reputation and trust is of primary importance. Although reneging on its established policy is possible, we do not think that AMP is likely to do so, as the resultant publicity, particularly in the light of what we have just found, will inevitably become public knowledge with repercussions. In calculating the price at which the claimants are prepared to assign their leases, they will take into account, as will the prospective assignees-purchasers, the strong probability of being granted fresh leases after expiry of the existing leases subject to refurbishment. As a matter of fact, we regard this element of the purchase price as being substantially the same in amount as the "reliance damages" referred to above. D.The Trading Experience The evidence before us indicates that AMP, by its officials, was aware of the real risk of a rival shopping centre attracting a large department store. We accept that such real risk existed. In order to prevent the opening of such a large department store in a rival centre, AMP had to make the business decision to expand The Centre. If it had not done so, The Centre would not have kept its position in the market as probably the leading centre on the Gold Coast. It seems that commercial reality in the 1990s requires a shopping centre to continuously refurbish or otherwise change or extend to prevent or overcome opposition from other centres. The opening of a large new supermarket in the vicinity in recent times has caused some loss of turnover in supermarkets in The Centre. We have been informed confidentially of changes being contemplated to counter this effect. We give this as an example of the need for continual change or refurbishment. We further accept that new businesses go through three stages, namely, an expansion or establishment stage (including growth), a maturity stage, and a third stage of change or decline. During the establishment or development stage, turnover and profits increase. In the maturity stage, turnover and profits stabilise. -- 9 of 16 -- 10 In the third stage, there is a decline of both turnover and profits unless there is a change. The change may be by way of refurbishment or change of "offer" as used in the retail trade, incorporating five Ps. "Offer" in the retail trade means a combination of product, price, place, promotion and position (in the marketplace). We accept that both claimants had reached the maturity stage by 1992. The last refurbishment had been in 1986. We accept that for restaurants six years is the outer limit of the need for change. The evidence before us is that the claimants' restaurants had remained substantially unchanged for six years. The product was still the same. The price, although reasonable, was no more than competitive. The place in which the business was conducted had not been substantially changed, and there was very little promotion. This conclusion that the claimants' businesses were beyond the maturity stage is based on what happened to other shops in the centre, other shops in other centres controlled by AMP and what occurred in the Australia Fair Centre in Southport and the expert knowledge and experience of some members of the Tribunal. E.The Redevelopment We have divided the redevelopment into certain stages, which correspond to the periods which we examined for the purposes of assessing any compensation. These periods are: - 1.From February 1989 to February 1990, when the bridge over the Tallebudgera Creek was constructed, and minor earthworks and other minor works were performed within The Centre; 2.From February 1990, when major earthworks were commenced in respect to the new Myer building, and the rear road to the K Mart was closed, until 23 September 1991, when the new expanded Myer store was opened. We accept that during this period there was major construction throughout The Centre, and there was interference which caused compensable loss to the claimants. We deal with this more fully below. 3From 23 September 1991, when Myer opened, to 12 October 1992, when the area known as "The Arcade" opened. The Arcade is a modern, air-conditioned, attractive -- 10 of 16 -- 11 building of two levels. Finishes are of the highest quality. There is direct access from Myer's store on two levels, and access on two levels by way of footpaths or escalators to the north and to the west. On the northern side of the second floor of The Arcade is a Food Court. This consists mainly of takeaway food suppliers, that is, shops which serve ready to eat food. Provision is made for shoppers to eat the food which they have purchased by the provision of chairs and tables in the vicinity. The entrance to The Arcade from Tallebudgera Way and Oxley Square is high, wide and handsome. The Arcade, as stated, is of high quality and air- conditioned. Finishes are of a high quality. The Arcade is linked directly on two levels to the expanded Myer Department Store, which has great powers of attraction and extremely high finishes. A six storey carpark is to the south of Myer. All floors of this carpark directly into Myer. The claimants allege that the attractiveness of the new Arcade and the creation of other features to which we refer briefly below has caused a substantial change in customer flow past their businesses. Among the other factors alleged are the situation and opening of a wide California Avenue leading directly from the north-west and causing pedestrians to walk directly from carparks to Oxley Square which has been redeveloped in size, shape and direction, the demolition of shops at the top of Linden Strasse, the development of Oxley Square, and the creation of an opening into Tallebudgera Way leading directly from an extended Coles, the closure by a padlocked gate of the previous walkway from outside the banks to the north-east area into Linden Strasse by the previous corner of Coles, the establishment and upgrading of Rue Montmartre including facades, pathing, lighting and sight lines, in contra- distinction to the destroyed or diminished sight lines to the central section. 4.The period from 12 October 1992 when The Arcade opened and the other changes had been completed, until October 1994 when we contemplate the opening of the Target store and Toys R Us. 5.The period subsequent to late 1994. F. The Assessments. We attempt to look at the various periods and the effect which changes for which the respondent is -- 11 of 16 -- 12 liable had on the business of the two claimants. The First Period. No claim relates to this period and no analysis is made. The Second Period (from February 1990 to opening of Myers in September 1991) We accept that there was substantial physical interference inhibiting the access of tenants and altering pedestrian to both claimants' businesses during this period. We do not consider it necessary to set out the physical features which caused this: nor would it serve much purpose. No counts of pedestrian flow are available. What we are obliged to do is look at trading figures in the light of all the surrounding circumstances and make our assessment on that basis. We have made adjustments in respect of trading figures, many of which we deal with below. We are in the position where we find that we have to adjust the figures either up or down due to a multitude of variables. The variables depend on our assessment of the effect of a substantial number of matters, both internal to the two claimants, external to the complainants and within The Centre and external to The Centre. We find that these factors do not lead to fixed figures, but are based on opinion and assessment. We cannot do a calculation by compounding all the figures which would increase our assessment, applying them, then compounding the figures which would reduce the assessment, and applying them. The figures are not even elastic in the sense that they have a basic shape from which they can be distorted, but which would return to their original shape. Rather, it is a question of the figures being plastic and being able to be moulded, depending on the view, experience and possible bias of the person dealing with them. For this reason we have had to adjust figures in a manner to which the three Members of the Tribunal, giving such weight as they think fit and proper to the various witnesses called, leads to a calculated but possibly flexible result. With regard to the first period, we first look at the claim in respect of Le Basin, that is, Fernmead Pty Limited. In looking at the claims, we point out some of the weaknesses in the assessment of the claims by the experts. Mr Calabro, who was called on behalf of the claimants, allegedly included in his claim some loss -- 12 of 16 -- 13 for the year 1989. This was abandoned, but nevertheless it affects our assessment of his accuracy. This original error appears to have been carried over in subsequent calculations until, at least, very late in the proceedings. We do not accept Mr Calabro's basis for calculations by using Consumer Price Index figures for two years and then switching to figures of increase when the Consumer Price Index increase had become very small, the figures based on the experience of "eating and other" establishments in The Centre. Nor do we accept Mr Calabro's use of such "eating and other" comparisons without making provision for the increase which occurred in the number and area of eating establishments over this period. With regard to Miss Micalizzi, we find no mistake and make no criticism of the figures which she used. At one stage, due to the apparent correspondence of two figures of approximately $52,000 each, she assumed they applied to the same heading and drew conclusions accordingly. When she had access to Mr Calabro's working papers, she discovered that the $52,000 related to him taking a different year as a comparable basis. Our reason for not accepting Miss Micalizzi's evidence is that we believe that the instructions which she was given were in part wrong and in other parts depend on opinions which are not more than impressions. She was wrong, on the Chairman's finding, on accepting the law as it was given to her in certain respects. One of the figures which she accepted was that of the estimate of Mr Byrne of the effect of the expansion of Australia Fair. He estimates that the loss in turnover to The Centre was approximately 10% of the increased trade of Australia Fair after its expansion. This figure is very imprecise and could rightly be called woolly. Miss Micalizzi sets off increased profits made during the period when Myer opened in September 1991 until The Arcade opened on 11 October 1992. We believe that this is a fact on which we have to decide. Mr Calabro, probably also on instructions as to the law, ignores this period of increased profit and makes no allowance for it in his calculations. This is dealt with in the next or Third Period. The Third Period (this covers from the 23rd of September 1991 to 12th of October 1992). From the time when Myers opened until the Arcade and surrounding buildings, including Tallebudgera Way, opened, both claimants' trading figures increased. They had the best trading figures for all the time they had been at The Centre. When The Arcade and -- 13 of 16 -- 14 surrounding buildings opened then the turnover of both claimants decreased substantially and has continued to decline. The respondent has contended that the compensable losses in the second period should be set off against the gains in the period between September 91 and October 92, that is the period between the opening of the new Myers store and The Arcade. part of the increase in trade of the claimants during this period was due to the new Myers store attracting customers to The Centre, but part was due to the absence of competition, in that the area available for food business was substantially below the norm applicable to shopping centres. The Chairman has already set out his directions on the law to the Tribunal. Taking these directions into account, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there should be no set off. it would be artificial to look on the period from the commencement of operations in 1989 until completion as one continuous operation only divided into stages. it seems to us that each stage should more properly be regarded as a separate development. The evidence is that a large centre is continuously being updated and expanded or changed. This is certainly so with The Centre. Changes with some links to the original 1989 plan are still continuing, ie., The Village construction and the plan to develop the north-east corner, where the banks are mainly situated, for use by another department store. During this lengthy period there have been changes to changes, for example there have been changes with reference to the design of The Arcade. To look at The Centre in 1989 and compare it period by period to its present composition leads to conclusions that the developments should not be regarded as part of one whole but that there were separate and distinct stages which could be regarded as final or final for a period. The Fourth Period (this covers the period 12 October 1992 to late 1994). We accept that when The Arcade and Tallebudgera Way opened there was a substantial falling off of pedestrian flow past both complainants' restaurants. This was due in part to the attractions and convenience of The Arcade and its surroundings and in part due to the competition of new food outlets. We have already dealt with the reasons why customers would limit themselves to the new area and not venture into the core area. Coupled with this was the novelty aspect, referred to as the "honeymoon period" during which customers were attracted to the new areas to the -- 14 of 16 -- 15 detriment of the old. The evidence before us is that such honeymoon period may last up to two years. Another factor which contributed to the decline of the pedestrian flow n the core area was the decline in the business being conducted by McDonnell & East. We also accept that the complainants' businesses were in the decline stage in the absence of refurbishment and would have continued to decline even if The Arcade and surrounding buildings had not been constructed. We have examined pedestrian flow as best we can. In doing so, we have looked at such figures as recorded on the people counters and we have drawn certain comparisons and ratios. We have gained some assistance from the manual count of pedestrians made by the claimants during these proceedings. We have compared the trading figures of those businesses still operating in the core area and which were operating at the commencement of the development in 1989. We have looked at the occupancy costs of businesses in the core area as a proportion of their turnovers and at what stage these reach a point when some of these businesses have become non-viable, using conventional percentages. We have looked at those businesses including Julio's restaurant in the core area, which have expanded and continue to expand since the opening of The Arcade. As best we can, and not always following the same reasoning, we have concluded that 15% of the decline in pedestrian flow past both the claimants' businesses was due to the actions of the landlord in the section referred to in the Chairman's decision on Section 15(a)(iii) and 85% due to the actions of the occupants of the new Arcade and its surroundings. The Fifth Period (this is the period subsequent to late 1994). We believe that it is probable that the claimants will seriously consider obtaining purchasers for their businesses and assigning the leases almost immediately. We feel that the probabilities are that such assignment will take place some time before the leases are due to expire. As the businesses continue to be in the decline stage, their turnover will continue to decline and it is likely that the complainants will take steps to obtain new purchasers as soon as possible. The attraction of increased pedestrian flow due to the opening of Target and Toys- R-Us will increase the pedestrian flow past the businesses thereby increasing their potential and their value. We have decided that the sales price of these businesses will be substantially the same as if -- 15 of 16 -- 16 the whole redevelopment and the conversion of McDonnell and East had not occurred. if anything, we believe that the goodwill of the two restaurants will be greater than if no redevelopment had taken place. We would therefore come to the conclusion that no compensation should be awarded for loss of income after November 1994 or loss of goodwill after this period. We accept that the sale price to be reached would, in any event, compensate for future profits and to award both goodwill and future profits would be duplication. Applying the Chairman's ruling on the applicability of "reliance damages", we have come to the conclusion that none have been proved by either claimant. G. The final Award Le Basin Restaurant (Fernmead Pty Ltd) We have set out the reasons and the factors which we have taken into account. We have looked at the figures prepared by both Mr Calabro and Miss Micalizzi. We have made a judgement in the manner which we have indicated. We have come to the conclusion that the compensation to which this claimant is entitled for the period from February 1990 to the 30th 'September 1991 is $24,000. We have decided that no compensation is payable for the period October 1991 to October 1992. For the period of October 1992 to November 1994 we believe that there has been a total loss of profit to this claimant in the sum of $176,000. The major portion of this is due to the actions of new tenants in the Centre. From our findings, stated above, the claimant is entitled to 15% of $176,000, that is $26,400, making a total compensation of $50,400. Lakeside Restaurant (Cypressvale Pty Ltd). Adopting the above reasoning and figures, we have assessed compensation for the period to 30th September 1991 as $45,000 and for the period October 1992 to November 1994 as 15% of $100,000 i.e. $15,000, making a total of $60,000. --------------------------- -- 16 of 16 --