“Hotel” does not require accomodation

May 31, 2011

Property / leasing

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.

About Sam Hopper

Sam is a property and insolvency barrister.

View all posts by Sam Hopper


Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

2 Comments on ““Hotel” does not require accomodation”

  1. Vanessa Says:

    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…


    • Sam Hopper Says:

      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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: