Showing posts with label Law Institute of Victoria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Institute of Victoria. Show all posts

Monday, 21 October 2013

Management fees - Practice Note for LIV's November 2012 lease revision

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



The Law Institute of Victoria is issuing a Practice Notice concerning the reference to the amount of, and the calculation of, management fees in item 10 of  the schedule in the November 2012 Revision. The Practice Note says:

"When using the LIV Commercial lease for a retail premises lease containing an option to renew and under which management fees will be payable, it is recommended that:

  • Item 10 of the Schedule be modified by deleting the paragraph beginning ‘If the Act applies’ and ending ‘section 49(4)’.

  • The information relating to the amount of the management fee and the method of calculating the amount payable by the tenant, for the first accounting period of the lease term, be specified in the disclosure statement rather than the lease.  This will satisfy section 49(1)(b) without creating potential issues where an option is exercised.  When an option is exercised, the disclosure statement for the new term should also specify the management fee and the method of calculating the amount payable by the tenant for the first accounting period of the new lease."

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 and Derry Devine subject to copyright under DMCA.



The Practice Note was drafted by Derry Davine and Robert Hay.

Friday, 31 August 2012

Can a landlord pass to the tenant the costs of complying with theBuilding Act?





I recently presented a short paper at the Law Institute of Victoria's Property Law Conference on the topical question of  whether a landlord can recover from a tenant the costs of complying with the Building Act.

The paper is available. at this link

Property Law Conference ( August 2012)(3)


The Law Instute of Victoria is Sponsered by Greens List and a link to their web site is here for your information and attention http://www.liv.asn.au/about-liv/contact-us



Sponsored by Greens Barrister List




Friday, 20 April 2012

The PPSA - where does one start?

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




It is remarkable what our leaders can inflict upon us in the name of “reform”.

 At the very least the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 is confusing and messy. That it has been inflicted on business and their advisors in this form says much for how ‘out of touch’ our politicians and public servants are.

Property lawyers are relieved that an interest that provides for the creation or transfer of an interest in land is not caught by the Act[1]. But property lawyers cannot be complacent because many transactions that relate to property will come within the ambit of the Act.

The complexity and confusion apparent in the Act is so overwhelming that the first question has to be: where does one start? In answering this question the most useful text that I have come across is Lionel Meehan’s The PPS Guide which is available in the Law Institute’s bookshop.  

[ To order this publication follow the link   http://www.liv.asn.au/bookshop/ordering-from-the-bookshop

Unlike other authors Meehan sets out how to approach an Act matter.  Meehan says that in order to determine whether the Act applies to a secured transaction four questions must be asked:

(a)               is there a “security interest”;

(b)              is the security interest granted in personal property;

(c)               has the security interest attached to the personal property; and

(d)              does the transaction have an Australian connection?[2]

If the answer to all these questions is yes, the transaction is caught by the Act and how it is treated under the Act needs to be considered.







[1] Section 8(1)(f).




[2] Meehan, paragraphs 2.004 and 5.002.

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.


LIV is  a proudly sponsored by Greenslist.