Retail Lease Act 2003
-
Mediations at which parties are unrepresented or not represented by lawyers are fraught with risk. Even with legal representation mediations are stressful, particularly where the mediation is only fixed for a half day and there is pressure to avoid long winded discussions about the facts. Experienced mediators invariably offer unrepresented parties an adjournment so that legal advice
-
Tenants commonly complain about water entering leased premises and affecting their use and enjoyment of a tenancy. In National Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Regal Hotels Pty Ltd [2013] VCAT 413 a landlord was held to be liable to pay compensation to a tenant under s.54 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 despite there being no defects
-
In an earlier post I referred to two cases in which the operator of restaurants in the Melbourne Casino and Entertainment Complex succeeded in claims that they were entitled to additional 5 year terms despite their leases not containing such a term. See: Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd v Crown Melbourne Limited and Fish and Company (Vic) Pty Ltd v Crown
-
The November 2012 LIV Lease excuses a tenant from performing any work that is the responsibility of the owner under the Building Act 1993. See: clause 3.3.3 which provides that the tenant is not obliged “to carry out any work that applicable legislation makes the responsibility of the landlord”. The new LIV Lease also excludes from outgoings
-
Happy 2013 to you all. This blog has been quiet in recent times but that will change this year. In Computer & Parts Land Pty Ltd v Property Sunrise Pty Ltd [2012] VCAT 1522 the Tribunal was asked to determine whether an option contained in a lease was not exercisable by the tenant because of breaches of
-
It is often difficult to determine whether premises are “retail premises” within the meaning of s 4 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 Act. Section 4(1) provides that “retail premises” means premises that: “under the terms of the lease relating to the premises are used, or are to be used, wholly or predominantly for –
-
VCAT recently considered whether s.92 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 applied to claims made under the Fair Trading Act 1999 (FTA) in a proceeding that also involved what was undoubtedly a ‘retail tenancy dispute’. The effect of s.92(1) of the 2003 Act is that each party bears its own costs in a dispute governed by Part
-
I have had a number of queries about my last post in which I referred to N.C.Reid & Co v Pencarl Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 2241 in which Judge O’Neill held that before re-entering leased premises the landlord did not have to serve a notice that complied with s.146 of the Property Law Act 1958. The lease permitted the landlord
-
Leases often provide that the landlord may re-enter premises and end the lease if a guarantor becomes bankrupt. In N.C.Reid & Co Pty Ltd v Pencarl Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT2241 the guarantor became bankrupt, the landlord re-entered the premises and leased the premises to a new tenant. The existing tenant sought relief against forfeiture and/or damages.
-
It is trite law that a slight variation to a lease may effect a surrender and re-grant. See: Pascoe-Webbe v Nuguna Pty Ltd (1985) 3 BPR 97,231 (SC, NSW per Young J). In Richmond Football Club Limited v Verraty Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 2104 a variation to a lease had major consequences for an unwitting
