Background
Ord Developments Pty Ltd was the landlord of “The Central Bar & Kitchen” at Singleton, and Valor and Pride Hospitality Group Pty Ltd was the tenant. Mark Joseph Smith guaranteed the tenant’s obligations. In an earlier judgment, the Court found that the tenant was responsible for plumbing rectification works and was not entitled to withhold rent or outgoings on the basis that the landlord was responsible for them.
Ord Developments then sought to vary the orders made on 27 July 2026. It sought clarification of Mr Smith’s liability as guarantor, judgment for unpaid rent, outgoings and plumbing costs, and a change to the condition on which the tenant had been granted relief against forfeiture. The parties disputed whether an 11 February 2026 agreement deferred the tenant’s obligation to pay rent until remedial works were satisfactorily completed.
The Court’s Holding
Harrison AJ set aside the earlier orders and replaced them with varied orders. The Court declared that Ord Developments was entitled to terminate the lease, entered judgment for possession of the premises, and permitted the landlord to apply for a writ of possession. Execution against other occupants, but not Valor and Pride or Mr Smith, was stayed until 21 September 2026, with service and application arrangements for those occupants.
The Court entered judgment against Valor and Pride and Mr Smith for $52,317.80, reflecting outstanding rent, outgoings, plumbing costs and interest calculated in Exhibit 2. It also ordered release to Ord Developments of rent funds held in JDK Legal’s trust account and ordered Valor and Pride and/or Mr Smith to pay the landlord’s costs.
The Court maintained relief against forfeiture, but on a revised condition. By 4 pm on 11 September 2026, Valor and Pride and/or Mr Smith had to pay the whole of any rent then due and unpaid either to Ord Developments or into court. The payment-into-court option addressed uncertainty over the February agreement and avoided exposing them to forfeiture if their interpretation of that agreement proved wrong.
Key Takeaways
- A guarantor’s admitted liability may require express amendment of consequential orders.
- A tenant found responsible for repair costs cannot withhold rent or outgoings on the contrary premise.
- Relief against forfeiture can be conditioned on payment of all rent due, including payment into court where the amount or timing of liability is disputed.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the Court’s willingness to vary recent orders to correct omissions, quantify a landlord’s entitlement, and make relief against forfeiture workable where a live contractual dispute remains. It preserves the landlord’s possession and monetary remedies while giving the tenant and guarantor a defined means to protect the lease pending any appeal.