Archive | Property / leasing RSS feed for this archive

Does the replacement RE take its claim subject to equities against the old RE? Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242

July 12, 2011

0 Comments

In the Primary RE case, the new RE sought relief from forfeiture of leases terminated following breaches of the lease by the former RE. The landlord argued that the former RE would have been estopped from seeking relief from forfeiture because it had failed to make an application for relief from forfeiture following service of […]

Continue reading...

Does a right to seek relief from forfeiture transfer under ss 601FS and 601FT of the Corporations Act? Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242

July 8, 2011

0 Comments

Primary RE replaced the old Great Southern RE of the schemes in this litigation. Under s 601FS of the Corporations Act: If the responsible entity of a registered scheme changes, the rights, obligations and liabilities of the former responsible entity in relation to the scheme become rights, obligations and liabilities of the new responsible entity.  […]

Continue reading...

Exercising an option out of time: Weemah Park Pty Ltd v Glenlaton Investments Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 150 (24 June 2011)

July 5, 2011

0 Comments

In a recent Queensland Court of Appeal decision, the tenant had purported to exercise its option out of time. The Court upheld the primary judge’s finding that: the purported exercise of an option out of time constituted an offer by the tenant to enter a new lease on the same terms as the option;  and […]

Continue reading...

Service of a s 146 notice on sub-tenants – Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242

July 5, 2011

0 Comments

Primary RE argued that a landlord was required to serve notice under s 146 of the PLA on sub-tenants (in this case, the Growers) because the definition of lessee in s 146(5) of the PLA includes a derivative under-lessee and the persons deriving title under a lessee. The Court found that, in the absence of […]

Continue reading...

“Reasonable time” in a s 146 notice – Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242

July 4, 2011

2 Comments

Section 146 of the PLA states that (emphasis added): (1) A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease or otherwise arising by operation of law for a breach of any covenant or condition in the lease, including a breach amounting to repudiation, shall not be enforceable, by action or […]

Continue reading...

New blog – The Property Law Blog

July 4, 2011

0 Comments

My good friend Robert Hay has just started a property law blog here. If you follow my blog, you may also find Robert’s interesting.

Continue reading...

Termination of leases and relief from forfeiture – Lontav Pty Ltd v Pineross Custodial Services [2011] VSC 278

June 29, 2011

3 Comments

In the decision of Lontav Pty Ltd v Pineross Custodial Services [2011] VSC 278, handed down last Thursday, a tenant applied to the Supreme Court seeking orders that the landlord of a retail premises lease had wrongly purported to terminate the lease and, in the alternative, sought relief from forfeiture. There are a couple of […]

Continue reading...

Amendment to Retail Leases Act 2003 – definition of “accountant”

June 27, 2011

0 Comments

The definition of “accountant” in s 3 of the RLA will soon be changed.  It currently reads as follows: accountant means a member of— (a)        the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia; or (b)        CPA Australia (ACN 008 392 452); or (c)        the National Institute of Accountants; The new definition will change subsection (c) to […]

Continue reading...

Is the breach capable of remedy? Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242

June 27, 2011

2 Comments

The s 146 notices served on the former RE cited a failure to tend and maintain the plantations on the leased land in breach of the leases. The receivers of the land owning company argued that a failure to maintain is not a breach capable of remedy. Primary RE argued the contrary position, stating that […]

Continue reading...

Part 2 – Cross-referencing error in s 62 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)

June 21, 2011

1 Comment

In an earlier post on this blog I noted that there was a cross-referencing error in s 62 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). That error has now been corrected by a the Statute Law Revision Act 2011 (Vic) (see item 81 of the Schedule), which came into force today. Thanks to Vanessa for pointing this […]

Continue reading...