Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L - [2002] QCA 543

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L & Anor [2002] QCA 543

PARTIES:

WARREN GEORGE HARRISON
(applicant/appellant)
v
INALA PLAZA PTY LTD ACN 081 899 247
(first respondent/first respondent)
MEDIHELP GENERAL PRACTICE LIMITED
ACN 010 695 173
(second respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9652 of 2002
SC No 7285 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - OTHER MATTERS - where lease between the first respondent and the second respondent for a "Medical Centre" - where the legal context in which the lease was made meant the premises could not have lawfully been used as a pharmacy - whether the term "Medical Centre" in the lease may include a pharmacy

LANDLORD AND TENANT - USE AND OCCUPATION - whether the term "Medical Centre" in a lease between the first respondent and the second respondent may include a pharmacy

National Health Act 1953 (Cth), s 90, s 92, s 93, s 99L
Pharmacists Registration Act 2001 (Qld), s 237

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337, applied

Edwards v O'Connor [1991] 2 NZLR 542, considered
The World Symphony [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 115, considered

Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 516, considered

COUNSEL:

P D McMurdo QC, with T Bradley, for the appellant
J S Douglas QC, with M Gynther, for the first respondent
No appearance on behalf of the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the appellant
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the first respondent
No appearance on behalf of the second respondent

DAVIES JA: The central question in this appeal is whether "Medical Centre" in a lease dated 4 February 2002, but expressed to be from 6 January 2001 between the first respondent as lessor and the second respondent as lessee ("the subject lease"), may include a pharmacy. The question arises in the following way.

The first respondent is the lessee from the Queensland Housing Commission, pursuant to a perpetual town lease, of land on which a shopping centre called Inala Town Centre ("the centre") is situated. The first respondent acquired its interest by purchase and assignment of the lease from Maembe Pty Ltd. The centre is an enclosed air conditioned shopping centre with about 40 to 50 commercial tenants. It is convenient, as the learned primary judge did, to refer to the interests granted by it or by its predecessor Maembe as leases.

The first respondent completed its purchase of the centre in July 1998. The second respondent, prior to that date, had been a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L [2002] QCA 543
Case: [2002] QCA 543
Decision Date: 13 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L, the primary dispute arose from the interpretation of a lease agreement between the first respondent, Inala Plaza P/L, and the second respondent, a medical centre operator, concerning the use of the leased premises. The appellant sought to challenge whether the term "Medical Centre" in the lease could encompass the operation of a pharmacy within the premises, a matter complicated by legislative restrictions under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) and the Pharmacists Registration Act 2001 (Qld). The case was heard and determined by the court of appeal.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the term "Medical Centre" in the lease could be interpreted to include the operation of a pharmacy, given the statutory constraints on the lawful use of the premises. The court needed to consider whether the term could be interpreted in a manner that would comply with both the legislative framework and the commercial intent of the parties involved. The court also examined precedents such as Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales and cases like Edwards v O'Connor, The World Symphony, and Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd to understand the broader legal context and principles of contract interpretation.

The court found that the term "Medical Centre" should not be interpreted to include a pharmacy, given the legislative restrictions on the lawful use of the premises for such purposes. The court held that the term must be understood within the legal context that existed at the time of the lease agreement. It concluded that any interpretation that would permit the operation of a pharmacy would contravene the statutory provisions and the intent of the parties as reasonably understood. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Harrison v Inala Plaza P/L & Anor [2002] QCA 543
PARTIES:	WARREN GEORGE HARRISON (applicant/appellant) v INALA PLAZA PTY LTD ACN 081 899 247 (first respondent/first respondent) MEDIHELP GENERAL PRACTICE LIMITED ACN 010 695 173 (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9652 of 2002 SC No 7285 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - OTHER MATTERS - where lease between the first respondent and the second respondent for a "Medical Centre" - where the legal context in which the lease was made meant the premises could not have lawfully been used as a pharmacy - whether the term "Medical Centre" in the lease may include a pharmacy LANDLORD AND TENANT - USE AND OCCUPATION - whether the term "Medical Centre" in a lease between the first respondent and the second respondent may include a pharmacy National Health Act 1953 (Cth), s 90, s 92, s 93, s 99L Pharmacists Registration Act 2001 (Qld), s 237 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337, applied Edwards v O'Connor [1991] 2 NZLR 542, considered The World Symphony [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 115, considered Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 516, considered
COUNSEL:	P D McMurdo QC, with T Bradley, for the appellant J S Douglas QC, with M Gynther, for the first respondent No appearance on behalf of the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the appellant Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the first respondent No appearance on behalf of the second respondent