Deputy President Macnamara at VCAT recently held that a permitted purpose in a lease provided as “hotel” was synonymous with “pub”, and that the term “hotel” in modern parlance does not necessarily mean the tenant must provide accommodation.
This is useful for people settling leases of pubs and hotels.
However, it does not address the “difficult question” of whether a lease of serviced apartments is a retail premises lease (see Meerkin v 24 Redan Street Pty Ltd [2007] VCAT 2182, Deputy President Macnamara; 16 November 2007).
Thanks to Jordon Ross, who appeared in the case, for providing a copy of the decision to me.
The case does not yet appear on AustLii. If readers would like a copy of the decision, it is attached here: Bay Street Rose Pty Ltd v Christopoulos.
Sam Hopper Barrister 
May 31, 2011 at 10:13 pm
As for serviced apartments – a (*$%$% – am I permitted to swear?) vexed question…. To whom is the service being provided? Are there goods provided too (a mini bar?!)
Should you grant a single lease of the whole building or individual leases over each unit?
A pronouncement from “on high” is welcomed…
June 2, 2011 at 12:50 pm
We don’t have an answer on serviced apartments yet. Given the amount of litigation arising out of them or similar enterprises in Victoria at the moment, there is a good chance of a judgment in the not-too-distant future.