I S McGeoch Pty Ltd v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia New South Wales Albury Branch Inc

The case of I S McGeoch Pty Ltd v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia New South Wales Albury Branch Inc was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the lease of land by the respondent, a shooting club, to the appellant, the landowner. The lease contained a clause that required the club to affiliate with the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, as listed in clause 97 of the Firearms Regulation. The club subsequently changed its affiliation to a different association, which led to the appellant terminating the lease, citing a breach. The respondent argued that the termination was invalid, contending that the appellant had waived their right to terminate or affirmed the lease by accepting rent during the notice period.

The legal issues before the court were whether the change in affiliation constituted a breach of the lease and, if so, whether the appellant had effectively elected not to require the breach to be remedied, waived their right to terminate, or affirmed the lease by accepting rent during the notice period. The court needed to determine the effect of the appellant's conduct in accepting rent and whether it amounted to a waiver of the right to terminate or an affirmation of the lease.

The court held that the change in affiliation by the respondent did constitute a breach of the lease. However, it found that the appellant's conduct in accepting rent during the notice period constituted an election not to require the breach to be remedied. The court reasoned that by accepting rent, the appellant had affirmed the lease, thereby waiving their right to terminate. The acceptance of rent was seen as an unequivocal affirmation of the lease, and the appellant's failure to promptly address the breach further supported the conclusion that they had affirmed the lease. Consequently, the termination of the lease was held to be invalid.

In light of the findings, the court made orders that the lease was still in effect, and the respondent was entitled to continue occupying the premises. The court also directed that the appellant refrain from further attempts to terminate the lease based on the breach.