For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
Owner’s lawyer, Casimatis, denies claims made by tenant Grant’s lawyer Levitt that the tenant was required to carry out refurbishment and renovations but not structural work.
Ketas of LH Hooker repossesses 39 Glebe Point Road. Levitt applies to Tribunal for Grant to regain access.
The Tribunal hearing is set for 2 April 2001. Tribunal orders temporary restoration of tenant’s access until hearing date.
On 30 March 2001, Casimatis informs Levitt, “Subject to the directions that may be made by the Tribunal, our clients propose to re-enter and repossess the subject premises immediately after the hearing”.
Contents
1. It is not admitted
2. Lock out 2: Grant
1. It is not admitted
Mr Casimatis informs Mr Grant’s Lawyer that the allegations of the Lessee are being denied.
28.03.01 Mr Casimatis to Mr Ketas JJ 1, 397
“For your reference I enclosed copy of even date received from LMG lawyers.”
28.03.01 Mr Casimatis to Mr Levitt JK 1-2, 398-9
1. At all relevant times the premises have been used.
2. It is denied that the tenant has a right of termination of the Lease.
3. It is denied the first floor is not usable.
4. It is not admitted that the Emergency Order N. 6/2000 from Leichhardt Council still applies.
5. It is denied that the premises are hazardous and due to the hazardous nature it is frustrating your client ability to use the premises.
6. It is not admitted that your client is unable to obtain public liability insurance cover.
7. It is denied that the Lessor has breached the Lease.
8. It is denied that your client has any claim against our clients including but not limited to under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.
9. Our client have become aware that your client has breached clause 10 of the subject Lease as either your client has transferred, sublet, licensed, conceded, is sharing or has parted with possession of the subject premises without our client’s consent and otherwise complying with clause 10.”
2. Lock out 2: Grant
Mr Ketas re-entered and repossessed the premises and Mr Grant’s Lawyer filed an application to the Tribunal which ordered a restoration of access to the Lessee.
28.03.01 L&C Locksmith to Mr Ketas JL 1, 400
“Eviction meet Luke
Service fee and 3 rekey locks and open 4 doors $195.00”
30.03.00 Mr Casimatis to Mr Levitt JM 1-2, 401-2
“Please be advise we are instructed that our client have this morning re-entered and repossessed the subject premises.
Your client, its agents, employees, contractors and inviters have no authority to access the subject premises.”
30.03.01 Mr McPherson to Mr Casimatis JN 1-2, 403-4
“Accordingly, the Application was made using the documents which have been served on you this afternoon and the Tribunal ordered as follows:
1. That the Lessor by their agents who they have appointed in their absence overseas, restore access to the premises and permit occupation by the Lessee, its employees and Contractors until further order by the Tribunal;
2. That the matter be re listed for directions at 2:00 pm on Monday 1 April, 2001;”
30.03.01 Mr Casimatis to Mr Levitt JO 1-2, 405-6
“In reliance upon your advice and without any admission or liability whatsoever, our clients will allow your client to access and occupy the premises only until the mater is dealt with the Tribunal on 2 April 2000. Subject to the directions that may be made by the Tribunal, our clients propose to re-enter and repossess the subject premises immediately after the hearing on 2 April 2001.”
30.03.01 Diamond Protection JP 1, 407
“8 Security Service $360.00
4 Security Service $120.00”
30.03.01 Mr Ketas to Mr Voukelatos JQ 1, 408
“Unfortunately Theo advises me to hand the keys back to jack grant late Friday night. At approx 3 pm Friday jack went to the commercial tribunal where an order was given to return possession of the premises until a hearing scheduled on Monday 2 pm.”