retail tenancy dispute
-
My last post considered Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 597 (Verraty) with particular reference to this question: Do terms implied into a “retail premises lease” by the Retail Leases Act 2003 appear in a renewed lease following the exercise of an option where the renewed lease is not a “retail premises
-
A default notice given under a lease does not necessarily require the tenant to rectify the defaults alleged within the time specified in the notice The Victorian provision concerning default notices is s.146(1) of the Property Law Act 1958. Section 146(1) provides in part: A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease
-
The Supreme Court of Victoria has ruled that a lease that is a “retail premises lease” (within the meaning of s.11 of the Retail Leases Act 2003) when it is entered into cannot cease to be such a lease during its term. In Richmond Football Club v Verraty [2019] VSC 597. Croft J upheld an
-
Today I posted an article about Verraty Pty Ltd v Richmond Football Club [2019] VCAT 1073. I have had queries about paragraph (i) where I said: “where the commencing rent under a new lease does not exceed $1,000,000 for the first 12 months, before the lease is entered into the landlord should make an estimate
-
Can a “retail premises lease” (within the meaning of s.11 of the Retail Leases Act 2003) cease to be a “retail premises lease” during its term? That long-standing question has finally been resolved. In Verraty Pty Ltd v Richmond Football Club Ltd [2019] VCAT 1073 the Tribunal held that a lease could cease to a
-
The CB Cold Storage and IMCC Group saga has ended. This morning the High Court of Australia refused the landlord’s application for special leave to appeal. The consequence is that the Court of Appeal’s decision in IMCC Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v CB Cold Storage Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 178 stands and practitioners can draft
-
The long awaited fourth edition of the leading text on leasing law, Commercial Tenancy Law, will be published in mid December 2017 by LexisNexis. The authors of the fourth edition are Justice Croft, Robert Hay QC and Luke Virgona of the Victorian Bar. The third edition was published in 2009. As was the case with the third
-
At general law the question of whether a tenant has validly exercised an option for a further term depends upon whether the tenant has met the conditions contained in the lease for the exercise of the option. The general law has been altered by the Retail Leases Act 2003. Section 27(2) provides that: ” If
-
Where a tenant provides services from leased premises in accordance with the permitted use the lease is likely to be a “retail premises lease” and therefore governed by the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). In every case it is necessary to identify precisely the service being provided, consider what activity is permitted under the lease
-
Leased premises that are “retail premises” within the meaning of s.4(1) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 are excluded from the operation of the Act where the lease term is 15 years or longer and other conditions are met. See: ss.5(1)(c) and 4(2)(f) and the Ministerial Determination dated 23 August 2004. The Ministerial Determination has
