Robert Hay has just put an interesting post on his blog about a change to the legislation regarding goods left on the premises after termination of a lease – see here. The potential problem with the statute that Robert has identified emphasises that it is prudent for landlords to ensure that leases contains a clause […]

Section 23 of the RLA prohibits the landlord from seeking or accepting payment of key-money.  It is a penalty provision. “Key-money” is defined in s. 3 of the RLA as: money that a tenant is to pay, or a benefit that a tenant is to give, that is- (a)            by way of a premium, or something […]

Section 52(2) of the RLA 2003 creates a ‘keep in repair’ covenant.  The landlord is required under s 52 to keep the premises in a condition consistent with the condition of the premises when the retail premises lease was entered into. In Computer & Parts Land Pty Ltd v Aust-China Yan Tai Pty Ltd [2010] […]

The Full Court of the Federal Court today handed down its decision in the FEA case.  A copy of the court’s reasons is available here. The case is discussed on an earlier post here. In summary, the Full Court: discussed the legal principles surrounding equitable set-off (paragraphs [135] to [163]); for reasons not relevant to […]

VCAT recently held that s 92 of the RLA 2003 prevents recovery of costs in a dispute between landlord and tenant of a retail premises lease of less than one year. Section 12 of the RLA 2003 states that the Act does not apply to retail premises leases of less than 1 year. However, the […]

Here is a record of an interview with Mark McInnes, former head of David Jones and current head of Premier Retail, discussing the closure of 50 stores in the Just Group announced recently. The interview contains commentary on the retail sector, and the future of retail tenancies in particular, including: comment on centres that are […]

As most readers are aware, Victoria has had a new disclosure statement under the RLA 2003 since 1 January 2011. A copy of the regulations with the new disclosure statement can be found here. I previously posted some comments on the new disclosure statement here. I have been looking at this again recently and have set […]

The final comments made by the Court in the Primary RE case related to the potential liability of Primary RE to a claim for damages for breach of the lease that accrued prior to its appointment as replacement RE. This argument appears to arise out of the operation of s 601FS (discussed in more detail […]

Another issue in the Primary RE case was whether a replacement RE can seek relief from forfeiture of part only of a terminated lease. Primary RE was appointed as replacement RE for only the 2007 scheme.  However, some of the leased land was used for other schemes as well.   Consequently, Primary RE would be able […]

In the Primary RE case, the Court held that relief from forfeiture would not have been granted in any event. The Court (see para [196]): did not accept that the financial prospects of a restructured scheme is a significant factor in the exercise of the Court’s discretion;  and accepted that the interests of the investors […]