Parties can agree to higher standard than that imposed by section.52 of The 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

Section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 implies into a “retail premises” lease an obligation on landlords to maintain “in a condition consistent with the condition of the premises when the retail premises lease was entered into” things such as the “structure of, and fixtures in” the premises, “plant and equipment at retail premises” and “the appliances, fittings and fixtures provided under the lease by the landlord relating to the gas, electricity, water drainage or other services”. When is the lease entered into if an option is exercised? Is it the date when the lease commenced or when the new lease arising by reason of the option being exercised commences? In Ross-Hunt Pty Ltd v Cianjan Pty Ltd[1] the Tribunal held that that the relevant date was the date that the new term commenced following the exercise of an option and not the commencing date of the first term of the lease. A further question then arose about whether a provision in a lease that imposes a higher standard on a landlord than that imposed by s.52 is void under s.94 on the ground that it is contrary to or inconsistent with s.52. In Savers INC (ARB 075 452 185) v Herosy Nominees[2][the Tribunal held that if parties wished to contract for more than was provided for under s.52 they were free to do so; in that case the leases (and earlier leases to which the landlords and tenant were parties) contained terms that obliged the landlords to undertake repairs to the premises and imposed obligations that were more onerous than those imposed by s.52. In the recent decision of Di & Li Australia Pty Ltd v Jin Dun Pty Ltd[3] Senior Member Riegler rejected an argument that lease provisions which imposed more onerous obligations on the landlord than those imposed by s.52 were void. The Senior Member said:

"[20] In my view, s 52 does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to extend the Landlord’s obligations to repair or maintain its installations. The situation might be different if s 52 was expressed as a provision limiting a landlord’s obligation to maintain plant and equipment to a condition consistent with its condition when the lease was entered into. However, the provision does not expressly limit a landlord’s obligations but rather, imposes what I consider to be a minimum obligation on a landlord.

[21] There is nothing inconsistent or contrary to s 52 for the parties to increase that obligation and in the present case, it made eminent sense for the Landlord to continue to have that obligation upon renewal, given that it held the reversionary interest in the plant and equipment. Further, it is not the case that s 52 is devoid of any limitation. In particular, sub-section (3) sets out various circumstances which limit its operation. Those circumstances do not include limiting the comparator to the commencement of the Lease. In my opinion, it was open for Parliament to have limited the operation of s 52(2) of the Act to the current term by stating words to the effect that a lease is not to include a term which requires the landlord to maintain plant and equipment, other than in a condition commensurate with the condition of the plant and equipment at the commencement of the lease. However, the section is not expressed in such prohibitory terms, nor is it expressed to indicate any intention on the part of the legislature to ‘cover the field’ in respect of a landlord’s repair liability.”

[1] [2009] VCAT 829.

[2]2011] VCAT 1160

[3] [2014] VCAT 349

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.

Terms of contract have ceased to be regulated by Sale of Land 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

This blog has previously referred to the important decision of Ottedin Investments Pty Ltd v Portbury Developments Co Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 222[1] which confirmed that amendments to the Sale of Land Act 1962 made in 2008 had caused “terms contracts” to cease to be regulated by the Act where multiple  payments were made before the purchaser was entitled to possession of the land.  The effect of the definition of "deposit" was that multiple payments formed part of the deposit.  In Ottedin Dixon J considered the definition of “terms contract” that has applied since 31 October 2008. Section 29A provides:

“(1)      For the purposes of this Act a contract is a terms contract if it is an executory contract for the sale and purchase of any land under which the purchaser is -

(a)        obliged to make 2 or more payments (other than a deposit or final payment) to the vendor after the execution of the contract and before the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance or transfer of the land; or

(b)       entitled to possession or occupation of the land before the purchaser becomes entitled to a conveyance or transfer of the land.

(2)       In subsection (1)-

deposit means a payment made to the vendor or to a person on behalf of the vendor before the purchaser becomes entitled to possession or to the receipt of rents and profits under the contract;

final payment means a payment on the making of which the purchaser becomes entitled to a conveyance or transfer of the land.”

(italics added)

Before 31 October 2008 any payments made by the purchaser on or before the execution of the contract (ie the deposit) or upon becoming entitled to a conveyance or transfer (ie final payment) were not payments taken into account in determining whether the contract was on terms.

In Ottedin the purchaser, in December 2008 contracted to purchase land for $6.5 million and paid a deposit of $325,000 with settlement due in December 2009 upon which the purchaser became entitled to transfer and vacant possession of the land. The purchaser was unable to settle. By deed the parties deleted the particulars of sale and substituted new particulars under which the price remained the same but the settlement date was changed to December 2010, the deposit became $1,325,000 with $325,00 due on the day of sale and $1,000,000 due in January 2010 (increased deposit). There was also a provision for a contingent interim payment of $3,675,000 with a final payment of $1,500,000 due at settlement. Ottedin defaulted and sought to avoid the contract under s29O(2) of the Act on the ground that the contract was a “terms contract” that did not comply with the Act’s requirements concerning terms contracts. The contention was that apart from the initial deposit of $325,000 and the final payment, the contract (as varied) was a terms contract because it obliged the purchaser to pay two or payments after the execution of the contract, being the balance of the deposit ($1,000,000) due in January 2010 and the interim payment of $3,675,000. Dixon J rejected the purchaser’s contention and gave summary judgment to the defendant vendor. His Honour held that both the initial $325,000 and the increased deposit were each obligations to pay the “deposit” within the meaning of s29A. His Honour held that the contingent interim payment of $3,675,00 (which was not paid) was either a deposit or became part of the final payment but its characterisation did not matter because even if it was an interim payment before settlement, there was still only one payment. In Portbury Development Co Pty Ltd v Ottedin Investments Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 57 Garde J reconsidered the issues determined by Dixon J and held that he considered “the decision of Dixon J to be correct on the issues decided by His Honour that were sought to be reargued before me”.

[1] The decision is now reported at (2011) 35 VR 1.

Author: Robert Hays Barrister subject to copyright under DMCA.

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.