Business and Professional Leasing Pty Ltd v Akuity Pty Ltd

Business and Professional Leasing Pty Ltd (BPL), a subsidiary of Business and Professional Leasing Finance Pty Ltd, pursued a claim against Akuity Pty Ltd and its director Graham Bruce Gillion for unpaid rent spanning 47 months, arising from a leasing arrangement for x-ray equipment. The dispute centred around the terms and duration of the lease, and whether there was a common or unilateral mistake in the agreement. BPL also sought damages for the continued retention of the equipment after the lease terminated, while the respondents counterclaimed, alleging misleading conduct regarding a facility fee. The primary judge's decision to set aside the original orders and apportion costs was the subject of appeal and cross-appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the parties' agreement could be rectified to reflect their common intention, particularly regarding the purchase of the x-ray equipment for $1 after a 12-month non-renewable term. It also had to assess whether BPL had lost its right to acquire the equipment due to the non-payment of the last rent instalment by Akuity, and if so, whether mesne profits were recoverable. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the charging of a facility fee constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and whether damages were applicable under section 82 for a breach of section 52 of the same Act.

The court found that there was a unilateral mistake in the terms of the rental agreement, and rectification was necessary to reflect the common intention of the parties. The court held that BPL had not lost its right to acquire the equipment due to the non-payment of the final rent instalment by Akuity, and as such, mesne profits were not recoverable. Regarding the facility fee, the court found that the charging of such a fee was unlawful and constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. Consequently, damages were awarded under section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The court also reviewed the primary judge's decision on costs and found that the primary judge's discretion miscarried by not taking into account the offers to settle as required under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The court ordered that the primary judge's orders be set aside and that Akuity and Gillion pay BPL $2,380.69 plus interest from 10 July 2003 until the date of the order. BPL was required to assign its rights in the equipment to Akuity upon payment of the sum and an additional $1. The appellants were ordered to pay half of the respondents' costs incurred after 7 January 2007 at first instance and in the appeal and cross-appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.