December 11, 2020


Breaking news – the CTRS in Victoria is to be extended…

The following was posted on the Minister Pulford’s Facebook page about an hour or two ago (emphasis added):

So many small businesses have done an amazing job to get through a tough year – and they’re looking to a strong recovery and a very different 2021.

We’ve been proud to stand with businesses and our support does not end with the closing of 2020.

The existing Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme will be extended to provide support for small businesses that need it – to 28 March 2021 and in line with the Mandatory Code agreed by National Cabinet.

That means freezes on rent increases and bans on evictions for eligible small businesses that have requested rent relief will continue until that date.

Commercial landlords are required to provide rent relief in proportion to the tenant’s fall in turnover while the Victorian Small Business Commission is on hand to provide free mediation to resolve disputes.

Support for landlords will also be extended.
Commercial tenants and landlords can get more information at

The Ministers Facebook page is here:

I will post more details as they come to hand.

December 3, 2020


Materials on COVID-19 and residential tenancies in Victoria

My good friends David Lloyd, Bill Rimmer and Antony Berger have recently presented an online CPD through Greens List about COVID-19 and residential tenancies.

Attached to this post is a copy of their excellent paper and PowerPoint presentation that readers of this blog might find useful.

I expect that a video recording of their CPD will soon be posted on Greens List’s website (see

November 5, 2020


First VCAT decision about the CTRS…

The first decision that I have seen from VCAT about the CTRS has been published today. The facts are very similar in substance to the Sneakerboy case.

The tenant operates a Chinese buffet restaurant and its trade was adversely affected by COVID-19 as early as January 2020. It fell into rent arrears and the landlord terminated the lease for non-payment of rent on 27 March 2020.

The tenant argued that the lease was an eligible lease under the CTRS and that it was protected from re-entry by reg 9 of the Regulations. Member Kincaid rejected that argument to the basis that the lease was terminated on 27 March 2020 and the CTRS was not in effect at that time, so could not have prohibited the re-entry.

In the alternative, the tenant sought relief from forfeiture. The tenant argued that relief from forfeiture should take into account the tenant’s entitlement to rent relief under the CTRS. However, Member Kincaid rejected that argument and required the tenant to pay all rent payable under the lease as a condition of the grant of relief from forfeiture, holding that (omitting footnotes):

72.      I accept the evidence of the applicant’s director Mr Chi to the effect that the applicant is enrolled in the JobKeeper Scheme, and that Mr Chi is an “eligible business participant” engaged in the business of the applicant and entitled to receipt of the Jobkeeper payment. I also accept for present purposes that the applicant qualifies for the JobKeeper Scheme, as “carrying on business” in Australia on 1 March 2020 notwithstanding the respondent having taken possession of the premises on 27 February 2020.

73.      However, in regard to the applicant’s obligation to pay rent and other amounts in arrears as a condition of the granting of relief against forfeiture, I find that there is no serious question as to whether the applicant is entitled to take advantage of the rent relief provisions contained in the Covid-19 legislation. I accept the respondent’s submission that the lease is not an “eligible lease” within the meaning of section 13 of the Act because, for the reasons I have found, there is no serious question as to whether it was in effect on 29 March 2020. The applicant will therefore not, in my view, be entitled to any rent relief or relief from and liabilities under the Covid-19 legislation. 

Unfortunately, it appears that Member Kincaid’s attention was not drawn to the Sneakerboy decision, discussed here, in which Robb J in the NSW Supreme Court held that the grant of relief from forfeiture revives the lease and that the tenant whose lease is terminated before the Code was published is still entitled to rent relief over the period after termination but before relief from forfeiture is granted.

A copy of VCAT’s decision is available here:

October 18, 2020


Double win for the Tigers and a win for tenants in the Court of Appeal

On the same day as the Richmond Tigers secured a berth in the Grand Final, the Court of Appeal handed the Tiges another important win that has implications for the retail tenancies market generally. 

The Court of Appeal on Friday has upheld Croft J’s decision in  Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 597 discussed here.  

The Court of Appeal’s decision can be found at Verraty Pty Ltd v Richmond Football Club Ltd [2020] VSCA 267 (16 October 2020) and has a number of aspects.  

First, the part of the decision with immediate practical impact is that a tenant cannot have a ‘late exit’ from or ‘jump out of’ the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) during the term of the lease.  This is important, as it means that the landlord and tenant of a lease that started its life as a retail premises lease can rely on the lease remaining under the Act throughout its term.

Secondly, my friend Paul Duggan has also written a useful post on the Court of Appeal’s decision here. Paul has also made the following point (emphasis added):

It is less clear whether a lease can ‘jump’ upon renewal of a lease. For example, ‘retail premises’ under the Act exclude premises whose tenants are listed on the ASX. Despite this, Verraty suggests that the retail premises lease for a ‘Mum and Dad’ business will continue to be a retail premises lease even where the tenants sell their business and assign their lease to an ASX-listed company during the life of that lease. So if that ASX-listed assignee then exercises an option to renew the lease, what is the status of the resulting further term? Croft J implies the answer depends on the terms of the lease involved. The Court of Appeal does not express a view.

Thirdly, the Court of Appeal said this (at [90], emphasis added):

In our view, acceptance of the Landlord’s construction — that the Act ceases to apply once the premises are no longer retail premises — necessarily means that cls 5.2(b) and 15.1(b)(i) (rendered void pursuant to ss 50 and 35(3), respectively) would apply and operate as originally intended and negotiated by the parties.  The Act rendered the clauses void but if (contrary to our conclusion under proposed grounds 1–3) the Act no longer applies, as contended by the Landlord, there would be no reason why the clauses, negotiated by the parties and otherwise applicable, should not continue to operate.  It is no answer to say that once the clauses are void they cannot be revived.  Rather, they would only be void in particular circumstances and if those circumstances did (hypothetically) cease to exist, there would be no reason why the clauses should continue to be void.  Although the relevant provisions of the Act operate directly and expressly on the retail premises lease, as the Tenant contends, so as to displace the express terms of the lease, it is only as a consequence of the application of the Act to the lease.  If (hypothetically) the Act no longer applied to the lease, plainly, its provisions would no longer operate on it.  

This is a paragraph that has already sparked debate within the leasing community.  For my part, I think that all we can conclude at this stage is that a clause rendered void when the RLA 2003 applied to it will not be void if the Act stops applying.  However, we may need more litigation before we know with certainty whether and when either the Act, or clauses rendered void by the Act, apply to a renewal.

October 7, 2020


Link to Abi and my recent CPD on the Amending Regulations

Abilene Singh and I did a webinar CPD on Monday about the Amending Regulations.

For those who missed it but want to see the video, it is available here:

The overheads from the presentation are also available if readers want them here:

October 3, 2020


There is not enough fun in legal practice!

Master Sanderson in the Supreme Court of Western Australia has taken a small step to remedy this. I think we need more judgments like this one…

The case has nothing to do with the law of landlord and tenant, but it so well written that I had to share it.

I genuinely think it is up there with Lord Denning’s famous decision about the cricket field …

And the decision by an ACT Supreme Court Judge who was asked to decide on the balance of probabilities whether he had fallen asleep during the trial …

Each decision is recommended reading for all lawyers.

October 2, 2020



An email has been circulating from the Victorian Small Business Commission to tenants about the operation of the Amending Regulations under the CTRS that readers of this blog will be interested in. The text of the VSBC’s email (with hyperlinks from the original email) reads as follows:

 Dear tenant

The Victorian Government has extended the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme (the Scheme) so that tenants can request rent relief between 29 September to 31 December 2020 (the extended period).

To request rent relief in the extended period you must write to your landlord and provide further information that fully complies with the requirements of the extended Scheme.

During the extended period:

1.         A tenant is only entitled to rent relief from the date they make a written application to their landlord that contains all of the required information. For example, if a tenant requests rent relief on 1 October 2020 but does not provide all of the necessary information until 15 October 2020, then their landlord is only obliged to make a rent relief offer from 15 October 2020. 

2.         If you have already applied to the VSBC or your landlord prior to 29 September for rent relief that spans a period before and after this date, you should consider immediately making another written rent relief application to the landlord ensuring that you provide all the information required under the extended Scheme. This action is strongly advised because it is unlikely that a rent relief application made before 29 September 2020 for a period after this date will have complied with the requirements of the extended Scheme. 

3.         A commercial landlord is required to offer rent relief that is in proportion to the fall in turnover experienced by their eligible tenant. For example, if a tenant’s turnover has fallen by 40 per cent, the required rent relief is to be at least 40 per cent of the tenant’s current rent, with at least 50 per cent of the rent relief made up of a rent waiver. To apply for rent relief for October to December 2020, it is not necessary to wait for turnover information for those months.

The Victorian Small Business Commission’s (VSBC) website includes the information a tenant must provide to their landlord when requesting rent relief and a letter template that tenants can use in making a rent relief request.

If you have any questions,please contact the VSBC. If you have a dispute about rent relief, please apply to the VSBC for help in resolving the matter through free mediation.

September 30, 2020


Consolidated Amending Regulations published

An updated version of the CTRS Regulations have now been published that incorporate the Amending Regulations that were published yesterday. These will be much easier to read. A copy is available here:

Thanks tp Gary Prince for sending me this link.

September 30, 2020


Another article on the Amending Regulations…

Here is a link to another excellent article that readers of this blog may be interested in by Paul Nunan at Eastern Bridge Lawyers discussing the Amending Regulations:

September 29, 2020


Comments on and a summary of the new Regulations extending and amending the CTRS

My last post was a link to the amending Regulations that extend and vary the CTRS.  

The new regulations rejoice in the name COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) (Commercial Leases and Licences) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2020 (Vic).  I’ll just call them the Amending Regulations.

There are a few headline points about the Amending Regulations:

First, as expected, the Amending Regulations extend the CTRS to 31 December 2020.  However, any new applications for rent relief apply only to the period between the new request for rent relief and 31 December 2020.  The upshot is that if you or your client is a tenant who needs rent relief until 31 December 2020, get your request in ASAP.

Secondly, one of the key issues about the implementation and enforcement of the CTRS in Victoria is the lack of a clear express power for the Courts or VCAT to make orders for the grant of rent relief if the parties cannot come to an agreement.  Justice Robb in the NSW Supreme Court recently commented on a similar lack of clear power in the NSW implementation of the Code (see the Sneakerboy case discussed here).  

Disappointingly, the Government has not taken the opportunity to expressly clarify those powers in the Victorian CTRS.  We may need to wait for more litigation before we understand the true nature and extent of the Courts’ and VCAT’s powers under the CTRS.

Thirdly, as expected, the VSBC now has the power to make a binding determination of the rent relief that a landlord is required to provide.  This foreshadowed power has been a source of significant consternation in the legal and leasing communities, as it vests quite an extraordinary power in a non-judicial body (in fact, the power to amend the parties’ contract is extraordinary even for a Court, as highlighted by Robb J in the Sneakerboy case).

The power that has been provided to the VSBC is limited.  The Commission can only make an order on the application of a tenant where the Commission is satisfied that the landlord has either not responded to the tenant’s application for rent relief or has not negotiated in good faith and proceedings have not been issued in a Court or VCAT.  


  • the Regulations already have a self-enforcement mechanism built into them for tenants – a landlord cannot terminate the lease for non-payment of rent (and now outgoings) during the operation of the Regulations (subject to a few conditions).  Consequently, if the landlord is not responding and/or not negotiating in good faith, the tenant can withhold the appropriate amount of rent while being protected from re-entry.  That means that the landlord (not the tenant) has an incentive to mediate and negotiate built into the Regulations;  and
  • the Amending Regulations provide VCAT with the power to review the Commission’s decision to make a binding determination, so the outcome of a binding determination may be the same as issuing proceedings at VCAT in any event.

The result is that we may not see that many applications for a binding order actually being made.  

Fourthly, one of the features that distinguished the Victorian CTRS from some other states’ implementation of the Code was Victoria’s ‘de-coupling’ of rent relief from the downturn in the tenant’s trade.  This has been addressed in the Regulations by: 

  • requiring the landlord’s offer of rent relief to now be ‘at a minimum, proportional to the decline in the tenant’s turnover associated with the premises’ (see reg 10(4)(ba)); and 
  • deleting the requirement that the landlord’s offer of rent relief take into account the landlord’s financial ability to offer rent relief (formerly in reg 10(4)(d)(iv)).

Fifthly, a tenant can make another application for rent relief if an agreement for rent relief has already reached but that agreement does not comply with reg 10(4)(ba) (ie it does not give rent relief proportionate to the tenant’s decline in trade) or does not extend to 31 December 2020.  

However, that request and any new agreement for rent relief will only from the date of the new request to 31 December 2020 and will not apply retrospectively.

Sixthly, the landlord’s offer of rent relief in Victoria was required to take into account the reduction in the tenant’s trade ‘associated with the premises’, whereas the NSW model takes into account all of the tenant’s revenue (see discussion here).  This has now been amplified because the tenant is required to provide in its request for rent relief a statement ‘setting out the tenant’s decline in turnover that is associated with only the premises’ (see reg 10(2)(a)(iii)). 

This causes problems for landlords seeking to take internet sales or sales from interstate stores into account when negotiating rent relief.  On the other hand, it also means that a landlord only has to share the pain for losses associated with premises it leases and not for the decline in sale in other stores that may have incurred greater losses.

An excellent summary of and comment on the operation of the amendments is provided by Paul Nunan and Jack Kelly from Eastern Bridge Lawyers here.

A more detailed roadmap to the Amending Regulations follows.  I have highlighted the numbered paragraphs below that I think will be of interest to most readers:

  1. The definition of an ‘eligible lease’ has been changed.  The tenant is still required to be an SME and to be on JobKeeper, but the requirement to be an employer has been removed (see reg 4A).
  2. The definition of ‘turnover’ in the Regulations is clarified so that a coronavirus economic response payment (which includes a JobKeeper payment) is not part of the tenant’s turnover (see reg 5(2) and (3)).
  3. The moratorium on termination during the operation of the CTRS has been expanded to prevent landlords terminating for non-payment of outgoings (see reg 9).
  4. A tenant’s request for rent relief must now be accompanied by additional documents evidencing the tenant’s participation in JobKeeper and evidencing the decline in the tenant’s turnover and other information (see reg 10(2) and 10(2A)). 
  5. The tenant’s application for rent relief must include a statement setting out the tenant’s decline in turnover ‘that is associated with only the premises’ (see reg 10(2)(a)(iii).
  6. A landlord’s offer of rent relief must now apply to the period starting on the date of the tenant’s request for rent relief and ending on 31 December 2020 (see reg 10(4)(a) and (c)).
  7. The landlord’s offer of rent relief must be at a minimum proportionate to the decline in a tenant’s turnover associated with the premises (see reg 10(4)(ba)).
  8. The requirement that the landlord’s offer of rent relief take into account the landlord’s financial ability to offer rent relief (formerly in reg 10(4)(d)(iv)) has been deleted.  However, the offer of rent relief must still be ‘based on all the circumstances of the eligible lease’ (see reg 10(4)).
  9. The Regulations clarify that rent relief applies to gross rent and that outgoings are not ‘backed out’ of gross rent before rent relief is applied (see reg 10(4A)).
  10. A tenant is entitled to apply for subsequent rent relief if:
    1. the tenant’s financial circumstances materially change (reg 11(1)(a));
    2. an agreement for rent relief was made prior to the commencement of the Amending Regulations that does not allow for, at a minimum, proportionate rent relief (reg 11(1)(b));  or
    3. the agreement does not apply to the period ending 31 December 2020 (reg 11(1)(c)).
  11. Landlords cannot request the payment of deferred rent until 31 December 2020 (see reg 16(2)(a) and (5)).
  12. The procedures for applying for mediation of an eligible lease dispute under the Regulations have been expanded and new application forms are to be posted on the VSBC’s website (see reg 20). 
  13.  The procedures for the provision of a certificate if mediation has failed or is unlikely to resolve the eligible lease dispute have been expanded (see reg 20).  Importantly, the Commission can now record in the certificate that the landlord has failed to respond to the tenant’s application to the VSBC or has not engaged in mediation in good faith (see reg 20A(3)).  
  14. There are quite lengthy provisions that give to the VSBC the power to make a binding order.  In summary, those provisions are as follows:
    1. ‘binding order’ is defined in the Omnibus Act as an order ‘directing landlords under eligible leases to give or agree to give specified rent relief to tenants under eligible leases’ (s 15(1)(na) of the Omnibus Act);
    2. a tenant can apply to the VSBC for a binding order if the Commission’s certificate shows that the landlord has failed to respond to the application for mediation as required by the Regulations or has not negotiated in good faith, and proceedings have not been issued in Court or VCAT (see reg 21A(1) and (5));
    3. the tenant is required to complete the required form (see reg 21A(2));
    4. the landlord must be notified of the application and both the tenant and the landlord can make written submissions to the VSBC (see reg 21A(3) and 21B);
    5. there is no hearing of the application (see reg 21D), so it must be determined by the VSBC ‘on the papers’;
    6. the VSBC can make a binding order that complies with reg 10(4), discussed above (see reg 21G);
    7. procedures are established for revoking or amending a binding order, although this is generally limited to revoking the order because the parties have reached agreement or amendment under the slip rule (see regs 21H to 21P);  and
    8. VCAT is given power to review the VSBC’s decision to make a binding order on application by either the landlord or the tenant (see reg 21Q) and to enforce compliance with a binding order on application by a tenant (see reg 21R).
  15. The VSBC has the power to sever, divide or combine matters that are the subject of an eligible lease dispute (see reg 21S).
  16. The evidentiary status of statements made during mediation and binding order process are generally not admissible at VCAT, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders (see reg 21T).
  17. The matters to which VCAT must have regard in a proceeding relating to an eligible lease dispute have been expanded to facilitate review of a binding order (see reg 22(2)(c) to (f)).  It is not clear why some of these items have been included in the Regulations.  For example, the Tribunal is required to have regard to the conduct of the landlord since the binding order took effect and it is not clear how or why the parties’ conduct after the binding order took effect is relevant to a review of the binding order.
  18. The Amending Regulations address the effect of a tenant ceasing to be on JobKeeper. Generally, if the tenant was on JobKeeper when made its request for rent relief or agreed on rent relief with its landlord, then the lease remains eligible (see regs 24B and 24C).

Thanks to Jamie Bedelis and Alan Wein for their input on this post.