(a) 'abide by any order the Tribunal may make as to damages in this proceeding that it may so determine the Respondent shall have sustained by the undertaking in C below and for which the Applicant ought to pay the Respondent'; and

(b) 'until further hearing of the Injunction Application or further order:

(i) prevent any person from residing at the class 6 unit known as the Hideaway Restaurant at the ... premises ...; and

(ii) prevent any person using the ensuite bathroom to the class 6 unit referred to in paragraph B(i) above'.

1. The 'undertaking in C below' was the undertaking by the respondent, 'until further hearing of the Injunction Application or further order', not to enter into possession in reliance on the notice of default. That undertaking was expressed not to prevent the respondent from otherwise exercising its rights under the lease.
2. The Order of 2 July 2025 set a timetable for the exchange of affidavits and listed the applicant's application for an injunction on 5 August 2025.
3. At the hearing on 5 August 2025 both sides were represented by Counsel, and both sides extended their above undertakings until 3 November 2025.
4. The Order set out further undertakings by the applicant,[1] in paragraphs I to V.
5. Paragraphs I to III set out in detail that within 90 days - in other words, by 3 November 2025 - the applicant would restore the ensuite bathroom to its original configuration (which the undertaking called 'Restoration Work' ) in compliance with all relevant codes, rules and regulations, first obtaining 'the prior written approval of the respondent to any tradesperson the applicant proposes to retain to carry out the restoration work'.
6. Paragraph IV said that 'The applicant will prevent any person from residing in' the Hideaway Restaurant in the premises. Unsurprisingly, no commencement date or time limit was stated for this undertaking. It was to operate immediately.
7. Paragraph V said that within 30 days - in other words by 4 September 2025 - the applicant will clean all roof gutters, clear leaf boxes, service air-conditioning units in accordance with manufacturers guidelines, and clean and clear gardens and paths. The undertaking called these works 'Maintenance Work'.
8. Paragraph A of the Order said, 'By their respective counsel, the parties have extended undertakings given in paragraphs A to C of the orders dated 2 July 2025 until 90 days from the date of this order, being 3 November 2025' (emphasis added). The operative part of the Order, however, did not expressly extend the respondent's undertakings. This is to be compared with paragraph 2 of the Order, which I am satisfied extended the dates for the applicant's compliance with its undertakings. The Order listed an administrative mention on 3 November 2025. On a harsh reading of the Order of 5 August 2025, it might be said that the respondent's undertakings in paragraph C of the Order made 2 July 2025 ceased to be of effect on 5 August 2025, being the date of a 'further order'. However clearly, the respondent has not taken such a hard line as evidenced by it making this application to be released from its undertakings.

On completion of the Maintenance Work and the Restoration Work in accordance with the Undertakings above, the applicant be relieved from forfeiture of its lease of the property, the subject of this proceeding.

1. The Order listed an administrative mention on 3 November 2025, which is a procedural device enabling parties to submit proposed consent orders or otherwise advise the Tribunal of the state of the proceeding, without having to appear at a hearing.
2. On 25 September 2025 the respondent filed an application seeking to be released from its undertakings recorded in paragraph C of the Order made 2 July 2025 as extended by the Order made 5 August 2025 on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with its undertakings.
3. This was the matter that I heard on 30 October 2025.
4. The respondent relied on 3 affidavits made by Dianne Platania sworn on 31 July 2025, 25 September 2025, and 27 October 2025, and an affidavit of Amanda Harrington sworn 28 October 2025. The applicant relied on an affidavit by Sukhdeep Singh sworn 28 October 2025. Photographs of the premises were exhibited.
5. The applicant suggests that it has complied with the undertaking to prevent any person from 'residing' at the class 6 unit known as the Hideaway Restaurant. Submissions were put by the parties on the meaning of 'residing' in the context of the motel which has staff who occasionally sit on furniture. It is obviously a grey area. It is understandable that the respondent would be concerned by the presence of clothes, blankets and two made beds in the area as seen by Dianne Platania and set out in her affidavit sworn 25 September 2025. However, the evidence is circumstantial, and I do not find that the respondent proved that the applicant had breached this undertaking.
6. The respondent alleges that the applicant has not performed the Maintenance Work. It produced photographs plainly showing that roof gutters had not been cleaned and plants were growing, leaf boxes were not cleared, and the gardens and paths were a mess. The applicant quibbled about the dates the photographs were taken, suggesting that these parts of the Maintenance Work had been done by the relevant time. I find that the respondent has proved that these three aspects of the Maintenance Work, set out in paragraphs V (a), (b) and (d) of the Order of 5 August 2025 had not been performed by 4 September 2025, or indeed by 16 October 2025 as deposed by Dianne Platania on 27 October 2025.
7. The applicant denies that it has not had the air-conditioning units serviced in accordance with paragraph V (c) of its undertaking, but it has not produced a receipt from a contractor in respect. In fact, it has refused the respondent's request that it provide a receipt. I find that the respondent has proved that the applicant has not complied with paragraph V (c) of its undertaking.
8. I am satisfied on the evidence that the applicant began some Restoration Work, as defined in the undertaking, without the respondent's consent. This is plainly a breach of paragraph III of its of undertaking. It at least raises the doubt that the work carried out so far complies with all relevant codes, rules, and regulations as required by paragraph IV of its of undertaking.
9. The breaches of undertaking which I have found to be proven are serious. In some respects the applicant submitted that the breaches of undertaking were technical or somewhat trivial. I disagree.
10. The textbook The Principles of Equity[2] states at paragraph [1834],-

Injunctions must be complied with strictly. Where a person is bound by an injunction, that person is under an obligation to do all within her or his power to comply with the injunction notwithstanding expense and inconvenience, and a failure to do so constitutes a breach of the injunction. The spirit of the injunction must be complied with as well as the letter, and it is a contempt of court to do or failed to do any act which may result in a breach of an injunction.

1. An undertaking given to obtain by consent an order in the nature of an injunction, is to be treated in the same way.
2. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal could vary the Order of 5 August 2025, to extend the dates by which the applicant was to complete the Restoration Work and the Maintenance Work. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to do so. Because the undertakings were given by consent, when the applicant was represented by Counsel, I am satisfied that the compliance dates were selected with care.
3. Accordingly, I release the respondent from its undertakings.
4. I reserve costs.

[1] The heading above paragraphs I to V said 'The respondent undertakes as follows', but it clearly meant 'The applicant undertakes as follows', and the error in the heading does not affect the meaning of the undertakings in paragraphs I to V all of which refer to the applicant.

1. [2] Patrick Parkinson, ed. LBC Information Services 1996. I have omitted the many citations that are in paragraph [1834].