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 had a number of queries about my last post in which I referred to N.C.Reid & Co v Pencarl Pty Ltd [2011] VCAT 2241 in which Judge O'Neill held that before re-entering leased premises the landlord did not have to serve a notice that complied with s.146 of the Property Law Act 1958.
The lease permitted the landlord to re-enter if the guarantor became bankrupt.
Readers asked why s.146 did not apply?
Section 146 requires service of a notice where 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 a repudiation".
For s.146 to apply there must be a breach. The tenant argued that there had been a repudiation. His Honour rejected the tenant's argument and held that the re-entry took place by reason of a contractual right; there had not been a breach and therefore no notice was required.
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.
