Aspro's Pty Limitied v Robert Frederick Hayter

In this matter, Aspro's Pty Limited sought an order rectifying the rent review clause of a lease with Robert Frederick Hayter. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the rent review clause, with the plaintiff arguing that the parties had a common intention different from that expressed in the written lease. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff contended that a common mistake had occurred, leading to the inclusion of an incorrect rent review clause in the lease. The defendant, in turn, argued that there was no common mistake and that the lease accurately reflected the parties' intentions.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established a common mistake that would warrant rectification of the lease. This involved examining the evidence presented regarding the parties' intentions at the time of the lease's execution. The court also considered the applicable legal principles concerning common mistake and the rectification of contracts. The central issue was whether there was an identical corresponding contractual intention that differed from the written clause.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a common mistake that would justify rectification of the lease. It found that the evidence did not support the existence of an identical corresponding contractual intention different from the written rent review clause. The court emphasised the need for clear and compelling evidence of a common mistake, which the plaintiff had failed to provide. Consequently, the application for rectification was dismissed. The court's decision highlighted the stringent requirements for establishing a common mistake in contract law and the importance of ensuring that contractual terms accurately reflect the parties' intentions.