Gillion v Casserly and Casserly

In Gillion v Casserly and Casserly, the parties were involved in a dispute concerning the assignment of a lease and the exercise of an option to renew the lease. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The applicants, Gillion, sought a declaration that there had been a valid assignment of the lease to them and that an option to renew the lease had been properly exercised. The respondents, Casserly, denied these claims and argued that there had been no valid assignment or exercise of the renewal option.

The legal issues before the court involved whether there had been a valid assignment of the lease and whether the option to renew the lease had been properly exercised. The lease contained a covenant that prohibited the assignment without the consent of the lessor. The applicants argued that despite the lack of formal assignment, there had been an equitable assignment due to certain acts of the lessees. Regarding the renewal option, the lease specified that the option had to be exercised by all the lessees, yet only two of them had exercised it. The applicants contended that this was sufficient for a valid exercise of the option.

The court found that there had been no valid assignment of the lease either by operation of law or by the act of the parties. The court held that the acts of the lessees did not amount to an equitable assignment, as the requirement for consent by the lessor was not fulfilled. Regarding the renewal option, the court ruled that the option had to be exercised by all the lessees as specified in the lease. Since only two of the lessees had exercised the option, the court found that the option to renew the lease had not been validly exercised. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents’ costs assessed on the standard basis.