Can the landlord require the tenant to pay the costs of complying withs 251 of the Building 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

Yesterday I posted an article about s 251 of the Building Act 1993. The effect of s 251 is that if the owner of a property is required by the Act or by the Building Regulations 2006 to keep premises in a specified state:

(i)  the owner cannot contract out of those obligations by, for example, including provisions in a lease that            make the tenant liable to repair the particular items;

(ii)  a tenant can do the work that the landlord was obliged to do and recover the costs from the landlord             owner; and

(iii) a tenant can set-off the costs of doing the work that the landlord owner was obliged to do against the             rent.

After the article was posted I was asked if the landlord could recover from the tenant the costs of complying with s 251.

Section 39 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 permits the landlord to recover outgoings from the tenant in specified circumstances. 

Section 41(1) of the 2003 Act makes void a provision in a lease that requires the tenant to pay an amount in respect of capital costs.

 In my view, s 251 would take precedence over s 39 of the 2003 Act with the consequence that the costs of complying with s.251 would not be recoverable.

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.