Leasing and Property Newsletter – August 2018
- A recent decision of the Land and Environment Court has prevented the operators of the Luna Park amusement park from installing a new ride;
- A case where one party argued that “and” meant “or” and;
- ACCC finds Unfair Terms in Office lease contract.
A recent decision of the Land and Environment Court has prevented the operators of the Luna Park amusement park from installing a new ride. Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd (“Luna Park”) had their application for a construction certificate for a new “Flying Carousel” or “Swing Ride” knocked back by the certifier as the works “cannot be demonstrated as not inconsistent with the development consents as it was unclear whether the development consents authorise the installation of new rides”. Luna Park’s attempt to overturn this decision in Court failed, with Luna Park stating that this decision may jeopardise the ongoing operation of the park.
Meaning of “and” and “or” – wrongful termination of agreement to lease
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently found in favour of Oxanda Childcare Pty Ltd in a case which dealt with a critical construction issue regarding a clause in an agreement to lease (Oxanda Childcare Pty Ltd v MAAG Developments Pty Ltd  VSC 370). This case is a great example of how important careful drafting of clauses is so as to reflect the intended outcome of either party.
ACC finds Unfair Terms in Office lease contract
The ACCC has investigated Servcorp’s standard contract for rent of office space and the parties have consented to orders in the Federal Court that a number of clauses in that contract create an imbalance of the parties rights unnecessary to protect the legitimate interests of Servcorp, and if they were to be enforced by Servcorp, would cause detriment to the other party. The unfair terms were declared void.