Carroll & O'Dea Facebook Leasing and Property Newsletter - February 2019 - Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers

When it matters,
you need the
right commercial advice

Contact Us

Newsletters

Leasing and Property Newsletter - February 2019

Leasing and Property Newsletter – February 2019

Published on January 31, 2019 by Paul Carroll , Matthew Rafferty and Gillian KirwanPaul Carroll , Matthew Rafferty and Gillian Kirwan

In this edition our team report on the following topics:

  1. Can a tenant exercise an option to renew a lease verbally?
  2. The NSW Tribunal has found a landlord’s demolition notice was invalid because the landlord served it so as to replace the tenant with a ‘better’ tenant: and
  3. When can an unregistered lease bind a purchaser of land?

Failed exercise of option

The Tenant verbally exercised an option to renew a lease of premises with the Initial Landlord.  The premises was sold to the Current Landlord on 13 May 2016 (after the expiry of the Lease). The Tenant claims the Current Landlord is estopped from denying that she validly exercised the option

Read more

Gillian Kirwan, Lawyer
Paul Carroll, Partner


Invalid Demolition Notice

MJHQ Pty Limited v Wynne Ave Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATCD 61

One of the most controversial and expensive topics in Retail leasing has come before the NSW Tribunal again – demolition notices. In this case, the Tribunal found that the landlord was using the demolition clause to terminate the lease so as to grant a lease to a new tenant.  This did not amount to a ‘genuine proposal’, as required by the Retail Legislation, and the Tribunal declared that the demolition notice was invalid.

Read more

Matthew Rafferty, Partner


Purchaser verses unregistered lease

Ideal Business Centres Pty Ltd v Violin Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1249 (9 August 2018)

The Vendor of a commercial property, part of which was leased to a tenant, entered into a sale agreement with the Purchaser. The lease term was for 10 years but it was not registered. On completion of the sale, the Purchaser required the Tenant to vacate on the basis that:

“As the Unregistered lease was not registered on the title of the land and is for a term in excess of 3 years, the owner is not bound by the terms of unregistered lease pursuant to s42(1)(d) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW).”

They argued that failure to register the lease meant the Tenant did not have indefeasible title and therefore the Purchaser was not bound by the lease. The Purchaser suggested that the Tenant was merely in occupation as a tenant at will.

The Supreme Court held that the Tenant had the benefit of an in personam equity against the Purchaser which overcomes what would otherwise be the Purchaser’s indefeasible title to the property under Section 42 Real Property Act. The Tenant won.

Read more

Gillian Kirwan, Lawyer
Paul Carroll, Partner

Need help? Contact us now.

We're here to help. For general enquiries email or call 1800 059 278.
For Business lawyers call +61 (02) 9291 7100.

Contact Us