Retail Lease Act 2003
-
My previous post contended that the Ministerial Determination dated 29 April 2003 made pursuant to s. 5 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (2003 Act) was made with power by reason of s.13(3) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. By the Determination the Minister excluded from the definition of “retail premises” in s.4 of the
-
My friend Sam Hopper has said in his blog that Judge Anderson in the County Court found that the Ministerial Determination which effectively excludes premises above the third storey from being “retail premises” was not a valid exercise of power. While Judge Anderson did express the view that it appeared the determination was made without power, His Honour said that
-
On 9 September 2011 I posted an article entitled “Can a landlord’s failure to comply with s.52 constitute repudiatory conduct?”. In Hann-Woodlock v ADMR Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 1776 Senior Member Walker held that the landlord had breached repair covenants contained in the lease and, with respect to a leaking roof, had breached the repair term imported into retail
-
Does a landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations under s.52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 to maintain premises in “a condition consistent with the condition of the premsies when the retail premises lease was entered into” constitute repudiatory conduct? This issue was raised in C & A Delaveris Pty Ltd v Bretair Pty Ltd [2009]VCAT 1663 [28], [79] and
-
In Retail Leases Victoria (Croft and Hay, LexisNexis) expressed the view (at para [70,005]) that a repair obligation imposed on a tenant that went beyond the obligation imposed on a landlord under s.52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 would not be void under s.94 on the basis that it was contrary to or inconsistent with s.52. The
-
Section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 implies into a retail premises lease a term that: “The landlord is responsible for maintaining in a condition consistent with the condition of the premises when the retail premises lease was entered into – (a) the structures of, and fixtures in, the retal premises lease; and (b)
-
A quirk in s.64 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 has caused some excitement. recently. Section 64 applies where a retail premises lease does not have an option to renew the lease for a further term. At least 6 months and no more than 12 months before the lease term ends the landlord must give
-
There is a translation key (widget) on the mirrored blog for ease of reading for non-English speaking members of the public or professionals. The mirrored blog can be found at http://roberthaybarrister.blogspot.com.au/ Section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 is proving to be a difficult provision to apply. Section 52 implies into a retail premises lease a
