McGlone v Kalgold Pty Ltd & Anor

[2011] QCA 215

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Landlord and Tenant
2. › Termination of tenancy
3. › Repudiation by tenant
4. › Landlord's claim for damages for loss of rent
5. › Guarantee and indemnity
6. › Whether estoppel against landlord
7. › Whether restitutionary remedy available
8. › Whether landlord failed to mitigate loss
9. › Whether guarantee set aside for mistake
1. Contract
2. › Damages
3. › Mitigation of loss
4. › Onus of proof on defendant
5. › Whether landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate
6. › Whether evidence established failure to mitigate
1. Restitution
2. › Unjust enrichment
3. › Whether general right founded on unjust enrichment exists in Australian law
4. › Tenant's fixtures and fittings passing to landlord under lease
1. Appeal and New Trial
2. › Appeal
3. › Leave to appeal
4. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(2)(a)
5. › Whether judgment exceeded Magistrates Court jurisdictional limit
6. › Relevant date for assessment
7. › Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld), s 98

Quick Take

For the purpose of s 118(2)(a) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the relevant date to assess whether a judgment exceeds the Magistrates Court jurisdictional limit is the date of delivery of the judgment, not the date the proceeding commenced. The onus of proving failure to mitigate remains on the defendant, who must plead and prove both the failure and the amount for which premises could have been relet. There is no general right founded on principles of unjust enrichment in Australian law.