Belmore Property Co (Pty) Ltd v Allen

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants, Belmore Property Co (Pty) Ltd and another, sought to challenge a ruling that prevented them from obtaining a writ of prohibition against a Fair Rents Board. The dispute arose when the lessors of premises at 393-397 Pitt Street, Sydney, applied to the Fair Rents Board for a determination of the fair rent. The lessee, Belmore Property Co, argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, contending that the premises were not "prescribed premises" under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948-1949 (N.S.W.) and that the Act did not permit an increase in rent where contractual rights were already established.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the building erected by the lessee in accordance with a covenant in a 1912 building lease constituted "prescribed premises" under the relevant Act, whether the Fair Rents Board had the jurisdiction to increase the rent beyond the contractual amount, and the effect of section 41 of the Act on proceedings for prohibition. Section 41 stipulated that determinations of a Fair Rents Board were final and without appeal, and that no writ of prohibition or certiorari would lie in respect thereof.

The High Court held that while section 41 of the Act did not prevent prohibition proceedings before a determination was made, special leave to appeal should be refused. The Court reasoned that a building erected pursuant to a covenant in a building lease was capable of falling within the operation of the Act, and that the lease, despite the demolition and reconstruction, should be construed as encompassing the new building. Furthermore, the Court found that the Act clearly contemplated that Fair Rents Boards had the power to increase as well as decrease rents, citing various sections of the legislation. Therefore, it was not demonstrated that the Board would act beyond its jurisdiction by proceeding with the application.

Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the respondents.