ByLawyers News and Updates

Retail leases – NSW

by

Certain COVID-19 related arrangements for retail leases have been made permanent.

The COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Act 2022 No 5 preserves temporary protections for certain lessees impacted by COVID-19. This is achieved by inserting a savings provision, s 88(1A), into the Retail Leases Act 1994. This has the effect of retaining the relevant provisions of the Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Regulation 2022 even though it is to be otherwise automatically repealed on 14 July 2022.

The COVID-19 protections in question include:

  • Landlords cannot act against an impacted lessee failing to pay rent, failing to pay outgoings, or not being open for business during the hours required under the lease;
  • Rents cannot be increased, except for parts of rents that are calculated based on turnover;
  • Any breaches of a lease which are caused by the tenants’ compliance with Commonwealth or State COVID-19 laws are excused;
  • An obligation on both parties to retail leases to renegotiate in good faith the rent payable under the lease, based on the economic impacts of COVID-19.

The protections reflect those of the National Code of Conduct’s leasing principles. Impacted lessees are generally those who have received government assistance during COVID-19.

The amending Act also creates a new s 89, generally empowering creation of savings or transitional regulations on leases in response to COVID-19.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Leases guide and the relevant section of the 1001 Conveyancing Answers (NSW) publication has been amended to reflect these arrangements, including links to these new sections.

1 January updates – All states

by

1 January updates are always a big focus for By Lawyers. While the profession takes a well-earned break By Lawyers remains hard at work ensuring our publications are updated for legislative and regulatory changes that take effect from the new year.

Updates

This year’s 1 January updates for relevant jurisdictions include:

Land tax

In New South Wales and Victoria, land tax is calculated for the calendar year. Threshold values increase annually.

In New South Wales, the 2022 threshold combined land value has increased to $822,000 for all liable land. Special trusts and non-concessional companies are excepted. A marginal tax rate of 1.6% of the aggregate taxable value above the tax-free threshold, plus $100 applies from 1 January. If the aggregate taxable value exceeds the premium rate threshold of $5,026,000 then $61,876 is payable, plus a marginal tax rate of 2% over that amount.

In Victoria, the tax-free threshold for general land tax has increased to $300,000. The trust surcharge threshold remains at $25,000.

All relevant commentary and precedents in the By Lawyers Conveyancing and Property and Trusts guides for each relevant state will be updated for these new threshold amounts from 1 January.

By Lawyers Contract of sale of land

The 2022 edition of the By Lawyers contract will be available 1 January in the Sale of real property publications for Victoria and New South Wales. The contract is located in the Contract folder on the matter plan.

Leases and subleases

In New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia the 2022 editions of lease and sub-lease precedents will be available from 1 January. these are found in the Leases – Act for Lessor section of each Leases publication.

Keeping up to date

In addition to our 1 January updates, By Lawyers updates our publications for 1 June and other regulated adjustments where necessary.

Of course we always update our content for relevant legislative amendments and other legal developments throughout the year, in all jurisdictions, as required.

Keeping up to date is one of the ways By Lawyers help our subscribers enjoy practice – and holidays – more!

The team at By Lawyers wishes everyone a prosperous and safe 2022.

Personal Property Securities Act and leases

by

Personal Property Securities Act and leases

All By Lawyers Lease Publications have been updated to include new commentary on the implications of the Personal Property Securities Act  2009 (PPSA) for landlords and tenants when entering into a new lease and on assignment. The Retainer instructions and To do list precedents have also been updated to ensure that these important considerations are not overlooked.

Leases often encompass personal property, such as fit-out owned by the landlord made available under the lease, or plant and equipment owned by the tenant left in the premises on abandonment.

In such situations, the PPSA can operate to deprive the true owner of their rights if not recorded on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR). For example, unless a landlord registers a security interest on the PPSR in relation to their personal property which is in the possession of a tenant, they may not be adequately protected against claims on the property by third parties including the tenant’s financier.

At the time of entering into a new lease or on assignment, a landlord should consider whether registration of a security interest is required in relation to any personal property. Consideration should also be given to the inclusion of a PPSA clause in the lease to allow the landlord to enforce security interests in personal property. Any such clause must be reasonable, should be confined only to the relevant personal property concerning the lease and should not affect the tenant’s ability to obtain finance or provide security to their financier.

For further information on Personal Property Securities Act and leases , see the By Lawyers Lease publications and the By Lawyers dedicated Personal Property Securities publication.

Electronic lodgement of leases – NSW

by

From 10 December 2018 electronic lodgement of leases commences via PEXA.

Summary of the procedure for electronic lodgement of leases

The annexures to the Real Property Act lease form are prepared in the usual way outside PEXA and then uploaded for attachment to the RPA lease form in PEXA .

The RPA lease form is created in PEXA, the annexures attached and the lease document is then signed and lodged electronically.

A lease may be lodged electronically:

  • as a stand-alone registration;
  • in combination with a transfer of land; and
  • in a series with other leases.

Sub-leases, surrenders of lease and variations of lease are not yet available in PEXA. This functionality is expected mid-2019.

The Office of the Registrar General has granted a partial waiver of a subscriber’s obligations to comply with rule 1 of Schedule 3 – Certification Rules of the Model Participation Rules relating to verification of identity for lessors and lessees, in that there is no requirement to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the parties. The waiver will continue until either the Model Participation Rules are amended or the partial waiver is revoked.

By Lawyers Leases (NSW) guide updated for electronic lodgement of leases

The relevant sections of the By Lawyers Leases (NSW) commentary, as well as the following applicable precedents, has now been updated for the electronic lodgement of leases:

  • To do list; and
  • Retainer instructions.

A new folder E. If required – Electronic lodgement has been added to both the Act for lessor and Act for lessee matter plans and includes:

  • A brief explanation of the transition to E-conveyancing;
  • Letter to lessor/lessee enclosing lease to be registered and client authorisation; and
  • Client Authorisation forms.

Enjoy practice more with By Lawyers!

Leases – New precedent – Deed of amendment – unregistered lease

by

As a result of some helpful feedback from one of our subscribers in Queensland, By Lawyers has added a new precedent ‘Deed of amendment – Unregistered lease’ to all our Act for Lessor matter plans across the country. This deed can be used to record an agreed amendment to an unregistered lease. It includes the following key provisions:

  • Variation details – to be set out in either the operative provisions or in a schedule to the deed;
  • A clause to extend any guarantor covenants in the original lease to the amendments;
  • A clause confirming the terms of the original lease as amended.

At By Lawyers we value feedback from our subscribers and often enhance our publications as a result.

This new Deed is the latest addition to our library of over 6,500 precedents…and counting!

Retirement villages in NSW

by

A complete guide on the law and practice as it applies to Retirement Villages in New South Wales including  a comprehensive treatment on obtaining accommodation and services within a retirement village, living there, and ending a residency including on sale, on termination, and on death.

This guide is available through the Conveyancing (NSW) publications as well as Leases (NSW).

– Precedents in the guide include:
– Retainer Instructions;
– To-do List;
– Checklist for prospective residents;
– Various letters of advice on commencing residency, completion and moving out;
– Various letters to the operator; and
– NCAT application forms.

The commentary includes information on the fundamental terms of the statutory regime, the standard contracts and mandatory documents, duties taxes and rates, taking occupation, living in a village and ending a residency including death and termination, payment of refund by the operator and dispute resolution.

Leases NSW

by

OCTOBER 
  • Costs Agreements
    • Disputes section improved, fields for client and firm details added, trust account details added, solicitor’s lien added, execution clauses for individuals and corporations added and general formatting and grammatical improvements.
    • Included reference to time limit for bringing costs assessment included total estimate of legal costs section with provision for variables and included authority to receive money into trust.
SEPTEMBER 
  • LEASE – Retail – Annexures A and B – Mortgage consent fees have been updated accordingly.

Agreement to lease

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

‘An agreement to lease is as enforceable as a lease’

Property lawyers deal with leases all of the time; sometimes in the context of a relationship between landlord and tenant, sometimes where a property that is to be sold is leased and sometimes in more obtuse ways, such as in relation to the assessment of duty or tax.

Generally speaking, such leases will be in a written form and the terms of the lease will be readily identifiable. However, unlike contracts for the sale of land which the law requires to be in writing and signed by the parties, the law has long recognised that a lease relationship can be created in a less formal way than a written and signed lease. Hence, courts will enforce a lease if the court can be satisfied that the parties reached an agreement to lease and this has given rise to the mantra of ‘an agreement to lease is as enforceable as a lease’.

Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 is the historical authority for this proposition and Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v. Maher [1988] HCA 7 restated the proposition in the modern language of estoppel and unconscionability, concluding that a court will enforce a written agreement to lease where it would be unconscionable for a party to the agreement to resile from that agreement.

2016 has seen something of a flurry of cases, at all levels, concerning agreements to lease:

North East Solutions P/L v. Masters Improvements Aust. P/L [2016] VSC 1 analysed the obligations of parties who entered into a written agreement to lease which included a term that the parties would negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes that arose during the term of the agreement. The enforceability of the agreement to lease was never in doubt; the issue was the meaning and extent of the ‘good faith’ obligation and whether one party had breached that obligation.

Risi P/L v. Pin Oak Holdings [2016] VCAT 1112 also related to a written agreement to lease but found that the lease prepared pursuant to that written agreement should be varied to comply with an oral agreement that the parties made prior to entering into the written agreement to lease. The landlord had sought to include a demolition clause in the written lease and the Tribunal ordered that the demolition clause be removed as it had not been a term of the agreement that the parties had concluded.

Crown Melbourne Ltd v. Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) P/L [2016] HCA 26 saw the issue return to the High Court in a slightly different form. The tenant entered into a 5 year lease with an expectation that the tenant would be offered a further term. No promise to do so was included in the written lease nor specifically offered to the tenant – all the tenant could rely on were words to the effect that the tenant would be ‘looked after’ when the lease came up for renewal. The Court was not satisfied that these words meant to there was an agreement for a new lease or even an obligation on the landlord to submit terms for a new lease to the tenant for negotiation.

The concept of ‘business efficacy’ has also crept into the language of these cases with courts apparently prepared to analyse the conduct of the parties through the ‘business efficacy’ prism.

Tips

  • Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.
  • Courts will enforce informal agreements to lease.
  • Adequate proof as to the terms of any such agreement remains essential.

Retail lease – Predominant use

by

Predominant Use

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor
First published in the Law Institute Journal

Section 4(1)(a) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 provides that the Act applies to premises:

wholly or predominantly for –

  1. the sale or hire of goods by retail or the retail provision of services

The Act was designed to protect retail tenants, specifically tenants of large shopping complexes where there was a perception of disproportionate bargaining power. However the Act is not limited to large complexes, although some of the provisions apply to a ‘retail shopping centre’, which is defined as five premises owned by the one landlord, and additional restrictions apply to such premises.

As the Act applies to retail premises generally, it may apply to shops and offices in strip shopping centres and even to stand alone premises in residential or industrial areas that have a retail use. Thus a solicitor who provides services to the public from a suburban office and a panel beater in an industrial estate may be entitled to the benefit of the protections provided by the Act.

It is important to understand that it is the use of the particular premises that determines the applicability of the Act, not the character of the tenant. Thus a solicitor is no doubt engaging in retail services and the solicitor’s office will be subject to the Act, but a separate storage facility rented by the solicitor as part of the legal practice will not be covered by the Act as those premises are not used for the provision of retail services to the public.

This distinction between retail and non-retail premises is simple when separate premises are used, but the distinction is less clear when the same premises are used for both retail and non-retail purposes. Such a situation might arise, for instance, where a business rents a large warehouse facility to manufacture furniture but also has a ‘front of house’ retail sales component. Determining whether the premises are ‘retail’ will depend upon whether the ‘predominant use’ of premises is retail and two obvious tests for determining the predominant use in such a situation are the comparative area occupied by the various uses and the proportion of income derived by each use. In the present example it is likely that the manufacturing facility would occupy the majority of the area and the income derived from retail sales would be a small proportion of total income and thus the predominant use is manufacturing, and so the Act will not apply.

The dictionary meaning of ‘predominant’ is ‘greatest’ or ‘most important, powerful or influential’. However the question is not so much what is ‘predominant’ but rather ‘predominant’ what? Consideration of whether the retail component of the business occupies the ‘greatest’ amount of the area of the premises or generates the ‘greatest’ proportion of income would appear to be relevant tests, but they are not the only factors to be taken account: see Elmer v Minute Wit Enterprises P/L [2002] VCAT 1101.

That case concerned a shop in a strip shopping centre that was rented by a tenant who sold antique furniture, a scenario that would ordinarily be retail premises. However the tenant’s principal business was conducted from nearby premises and the shop was used only for display and storage, only being opened when an inquiry was directed to the principal place of business. This, in addition to other reasons, justified a finding that the premises were not retail premises within the meaning of the Act and introduced a ‘time’ test into the mix.

A similar ‘time’ test was adopted in Evans & Ors v Thurau P/L [2011] VCC 1354. The subject property was an apartment in a ski lodge which was subject to a requirement in the head lease that the apartment be available for rental through the head tenant to members of the public when not in use by the subtenant. It was argued that this meant that the property was ‘holiday accommodation’ and therefore ‘retail premises’ and that the dispute should therefore be before VCAT. Judge Anderson concluded that the fact that the snow season was limited and that the subtenant could, if they choose, occupy the premises for the whole of that season to the exclusion of the public meant that the predominant use was not retail. The fact that a retail use was one of the possible uses was not enough.

It can been seen from these cases that the determination of whether the ‘predominant use’ of premises is retail will depend upon a number of possible factors, some or all of which may play a greater or lesser role in the determination in each case. Apart from what the lease itself may provide, the courts may consider the area occupied by the retail component, the income earned by that component and the time that the retail component is utilised.

It will be interesting to see how these factors will come into play when an inevitable question comes up for determination. That will be a dispute arising from premises used for retail sales conducted entirely by phone, fax or internet, a typical call centre environment. Such premises do not include physical access to the premises by members of the public, but certainly involve retail sales. No doubt one party will argue that public access is an integral part of retail sales within the meaning of the Act, an argument that appears to have some merit when the purposes of the Act are considered.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.

Lease – Landlords beware

by

By Russell Cocks, Solicitor

First published in the Law Institute Journal

Distress is an ancient common law right entitling a landlord, initially, to seize and retain a tenant’s goods if the tenant failed to pay rent. Eventually the right was extended to permit the landlord to sell those goods if the tenant continued to fail to pay the rent. It would be hard to imagine, perhaps short of flogging, a right more at odds with modern consumer protection principles and, not surprisingly, this right fell by the wayside many years ago, 1948 to be exact. However, as observed by DP. Macnamara in VCAT in Kiwi Munchies P/L v Nikolitis [2006] VCAT 929 “It is staggering the number of agents and solicitors who seem to be ignorant of this fact.”

That case, amongst other issues, considered the consequences of the landlord effectively exercising distress by demanding that a defaulting tenant pay arrears of rent before allowing the tenant to recover the tenant’s goods from the premises. Absent a right to distress, now long since gone, the landlord’s actions in seizing the tenant’s goods amount to trespass and conversion. The result was disastrous for the landlord, with an order for compensation for equipment and stock, at that stage stored in a shed in the landlord’s backyard, of $14,000 in respect of premises that were let for less than $12,000 per year.

The recording of the contractual agreement between the landlord and tenant in that case was less than clear. The arrangement had commenced with a ‘skeleton’ lease of 12 months, was then recorded by a ‘standard’ lease which included an option, and by the time the dispute arose it appears that the tenant was overholding in accordance with the terms of the ‘standard’ lease. The landlord’s agent served a (badly worded) ‘Notice to Remedy’ and subsequently re-entered the premises and changed the locks. Whilst it was common ground that the lease had eventually come to an end, the exact timing of the determination of the lease was not identified and the actions of the landlord, which amounted to distress and were thus illegal, were regarded as having taken place before the lease had come to an end.

This was a distinguishing feature with the recent case of Sharon-Lee Holdings P/L v Asian Pacific Building Corporation P/L [2012] VCAT 546. This is a real David v. Goliath dispute but again centred on the tenant’s failure to pay rent and the seizure by the landlord of the tenant’s equipment and goods. The tenant issued proceedings based on detinue and conversion and if the landlord’s actions amounted to distress then they were unjustified and the tenant would succeed.

The landlord however foreswore the remedy of distress and based its claim on particular clauses in the lease that it claimed created a contractual right for the landlord to remove any of the goods of the tenant from the premises after breach and store them at the cost of the tenant. The landlord did not claim the right to sell the goods, merely that the lease gave the landlord a possessory lien over the goods and thereby a defence to the claim of conversion.

The landlord argued that the possessory lien created by the lease could only come into existence after the lease had been terminated and the landlord had taken possession of the goods. The lease created the contractual right, but it only crystallised after termination of the lease when the landlord actually took possession of the goods. Hence that could not amount to distress, as distress can only be levied during the subsistence of the lease, as had been the case in Kiwi Munchies. This argument was accepted.

The landlord relied upon two clauses in the lease to justify its actions. Whilst one of the relevant clauses referred to the right to remove the tenant’s property as arising after ‘reentry’ (which amounted to termination of the lease), another clause suggested that the lien arose upon mere ‘breach’ by the tenant. The Tribunal concluded that as this clause was capable of giving the landlord the right to seize the tenant’s goods for mere breach that did not amount to termination of the lease, the clause therefore purported to authorise conduct that ‘amounts to distress for rent and is illegal’. It followed that such a clause is contrary to public policy and therefore void. It was irrelevant that the possessory lien had in fact been exercised after termination and therefore did not amount to distress, it was sufficient that the clause purported to authorise such conduct during the term of the lease, which conduct would have amounted to distress.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that whilst the landlord’s conduct had not constituted distress, as it had occurred after the lease had been terminated, nevertheless there was “no contractual or other right to seize or retain the Goods following termination of the Lease, pending payment of outstanding monies owed under the Lease.” The hearing was adjourned to consider the appropriate order, which would have included an order for compensation to the tenant for trespass and conversion.

This case does not mean that a lease cannot include clauses giving landlords contractual rights in respect of tenant’s goods after termination of the lease. It simply means that such clauses must be very carefully drawn.

Addendum: Sharon-Lee Holdings P/L v Asian Pacific Building Corporation P/L [2012] VCAT 546 reconsidered by Supreme Court at Asian Pacific Building Corporation Pty Ltd v SharonLee Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 11.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.

Connect with us