In This Issue

• eNews index
• PAMDA Alert: New Warning Statement required for second offer from buyer
• Sustainability Declarations – Yet another paperwork hurdle for agents
• How good is your lease? - Court says change in occupier is not always a change in possession
• Commercial landlords save costs with leasing bureau

Carter Capner Law Property & Leasing homepage

Email Carter Capner Law Property & Leasing

 

Subscribe to Property & Leasing eNews

How good is your lease? - Court says change in occupier is not always a change in possession

As a recent Supreme Court decision* illustrates, a change in the identity of the occupier of commercial premises does not necessarily constitute an unauthorised dealing with the lease by the tenant.

Australia Post had leased a warehouse from Ace Properties in West End since 1998 and exercised a further five-year option of renewal in 2006.

From about 2003, Decipha – an associate of Australia Post - occupied the premises.

Clause 7.1 of the lease provided:

The Lessee may only sublet or licence or otherwise part with possession of the Premises with the consent of the Lessor.

In 2008 the landlord wrote to the tenant stating that it considered there had been a breach of the lease because of its occupation by Decipha and also because the tenant was conducting operations on the premises outside the scope of the "permitted use".

The landlord offered to consent to the above as "variations" to the lease provided the tenant agree that the rent be reviewed to market from the date upon which the above changes occurred. The tenant refused and the landlord issued a Notice to Remedy Breach of Covenant.

The tenant sought relief in the Supreme Court.

The tenant contended that it had never parted with possession of the premises notwithstanding the activities of Decipha.

Rent was always paid by or on behalf of Australia Post. The premises were managed on behalf of Australia Post and not Decipha. Maintenance issues in respect of the premises were raised on the tenant’s behalf with the landlord. There was no documented arrangement between the tenant and Decipha. The tenant had always represented to the landlord that it was the tenant of the premises. Decipha was its wholly owned subsidiary.

On this basis - because Australia Post remained in control of the possession of the premises - the court distinguished the current situation from that of a tenant and subtenant. There had been no assignment or subletting and no breach of clause 7.1 of the lease.

Landlords should also note that section 121 of the Property Law Act 1974 specifies that consent to an assignment must not be unreasonably withheld.

The decision is currently under appeal.

* Australian Postal Corporation v Ace Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 199

---

How effective are the corresponding provisions in your leases?

Don't assume that your leases already include all protections available to landlords for rental increases.

If your leases do not already contain sufficient landlord protections, they may be able to be remedied sooner rather than later. Every variation, renewal and even a default gives you an opportunity to potentially rectify deficiencies and improve the provisions of the original lease!

Carter Capner Law will review your leases now and let you know what deficiencies exist and what improvements can be achieved.

Email Peter Carter or call him on 1300 LAW LAW (1300 529 529) to discuss any upcoming leases or renewals and what you should include in them.

All Carter Capner Law commercial retail & industrial landlord clients have 24/7 free on-line access to a fully maintained 'shop by shop' bureau of their essential tenancy documents. Also, email alerts of upcoming rent reviews, option dates etc. How much time and money can this save you?

---

"I found the people at Carter Capner to be dynamic, caring and always smiling. Their services exceeded all of my expectations. If I ever encounter friends needing a solicitor I let them know who to call. Your staff are the very best!"
Dennis