Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre

Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre involved a dispute between the appellant, Collett, and the respondent, Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd, concerning the terms of a lease agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Collett sought to have the lease agreement rectified to reflect what she claimed was the common intention of the parties, rather than what was documented in the written agreement. Specifically, she argued that the written terms did not align with her understanding of the lease's financial obligations and operational conditions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the lease agreement could be rectified to reflect a common intention that differed from the written terms. The court was also required to determine if Collett was bound by the terms of the lease despite not having read it in its entirety before signing. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to justify rectifying the lease to reflect what the parties purportedly agreed upon.

The court found that there was no common intention between the parties that differed from the written terms of the lease. It was determined that the entire agreement clause in the lease precluded any prior understandings or representations that were not included in the written document. Furthermore, the court held that the signature of Collett on the lease bound her to its terms, regardless of whether she had read the entire document. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a common intention that would warrant rectifying the lease. Consequently, the court dismissed Collett's application for rectification of the lease agreement.