Heng v Levison

Heng was the landlord of a shopping centre in which Levison operated a retail shop. Levison's lease provided that he would contribute to the landlord's expenses in accordance with the Retail Shops Act. The lease also provided that all fees reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the property were recoverable by the landlord from Levison. The landlord sued Levison for unpaid expenses. Levison argued that he was not liable for certain expenses because they were not "reasonably incurred" and because the lease did not specify that fees paid to the landlord's managing agent were recoverable. The primary judge found for Levison. The landlord appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The court had to decide whether the lease sufficiently specified that fees paid by the landlord to the managing agent were recoverable by the landlord from Levison. The court also had to decide whether Levison was liable for expenses that he did not consider to be "reasonably incurred".

The court held that the lease did sufficiently specify that fees paid by the landlord to the managing agent were recoverable. The court found that the phrase "reasonably incurred fees" was broad enough to include fees paid to the landlord's managing agent. The court found that the lease did not require the landlord to demonstrate that the fees were "reasonably incurred" for the purpose of recovering those fees from Levison. The court also found that Levison was liable for expenses that he did not consider to be "reasonably incurred" because the lease did not require the landlord to demonstrate that the fees were "reasonably incurred" for the purpose of recovering those fees from Levison.

The appeal was allowed. The primary judge's decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to the primary judge to enter a judgment for the landlord in relation to the unpaid expenses.