Thursday, 18 April 2013

Landlord liable to pay compensation under s.54 of Retail Leases Act

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



Tenants commonly complain about water entering leased premises and affecting their use and enjoyment of a tenancy. In National Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Regal Hotels Pty Ltd [2013] VCAT 413 a landlord was held to be liable to pay compensation to a tenant under s.54 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 despite there being no defects in the leased premises. The tenant complained on many occasions to the landlord about water entering the premises.  The tenant sued for damages relying, among other provisions, s.54 of the Act. Section 54 implies into a  lease a requirement that the landlord pay reasonable compensation to the tenant for loss or disruption suffered by the tenant because the landlord fails to, among other things, take reasonable steps to prevent or stop significant disruption with the landlord's control to the tenant's trading at the premises.  Despite the cause of the water entering the premises being damage to storm water drains outside the leased area and there being no defects in the premises, the Vice President, Judge Jenkins held that the landlord was liable to pay the tenant damages of  $35,000. Judge Jenkins held that the landlord was liable to pay compensation under s.54(2) of the Act because it had "breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing or refusing to take steps which were reasonably available to it", the breach being that the landlord had not kept the tenant informed of progress or investigations or provide it with any reports or advice and did not engage its own engineering or plumbing consultant to give advice and undertaken appropriate investigations.  It is  respectfully submitted that the decision shows a misunderstanding of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and imposes obligations on landlords that are not supported by the Act. Pursuant to a provision in the lease the tenant also entitled to an abatement of rent for the period when the premises was unfit for use.


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.

5 comments:

  1. It also shows a lack of understanding of the nature of property. A leak can be difficult to find its source. and difficult to rectify whilst raining. You can only test the repairs during the next rain. I wonder if this would be the case if the lease had a clause indemnifying the landlord from water penetration. Or does the act over ride any lease clause. I know we have had leaks that have taken many many months to locate and rectify. I gather if we do not involve the tenant in this process then it does not matter what we do, is that correct.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi there! This post couldn't be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a
    forty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.
    My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views.
    I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi! I've been reading your web site for a long time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Dallas Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the good job!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great info. Lucky me I recently found your blog by chance (stumbleupon).
    I've saved it for later!

    ReplyDelete