Please note for members of the public or practitioners in the legal profession where English is your second language a translation key in all languages of the world is available on this blog to assist you. The plain English blog without translation facilities is located at http://roberthaypropertybarrister.wordpress.com
I have been asked to explain the opinion that I proffered on 13 April that a landlord which complies with s 251 of the Building Act 1993 could not recover the costs of compliance from the tenant.
Section 251 is similar in many respects to s 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003: under both Acts the owner/landlord is required to do certain work and, if it is not done, the tenant can do the work and recover the cost of so doing from the owner/landlord.
VCAT has considered the question of whether a landlord can recover the costs of complying with s 52 of the 2003 Act. In Cafe Dansk Pty Ltd v Shiel  VCAT 36 Deputy President Macnamara (as his Honour was then known) dismissed the landlord's argument at  as follows:
I find Dr Croft's sceptical views on this point compelling. It would, in my view, make a mockery of s 52 if Parliament having allocated the responsibility for certain repairs to the landlord, the landlord could then send the bill to the tenant for the cost of carrying out those repairs....
In my view the same logic applies to s 251 of the Building Act.
My clerk can be contacted via this link http://www.greenslist.com.au/ if you wish to retain my services for any legal matter which is within the gamut of my legal experience.
Author: Robert Hays Barrister subject to copyright under DMCA.