Larosa v Number 100 Pty Ltd

In *Larosa v Number 100 Pty Ltd*, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between a tenant, Mr. Larosa, and his landlord, Number 100 Pty Ltd, concerning the termination of a retail lease. Mr. Larosa sought to terminate the lease under section 14(1) of the *Retail Leases Act 2003* (Vic) (the Act), which allows a tenant to terminate a lease if the landlord fails to provide a disclosure statement within the prescribed timeframe. The landlord argued that the tenant had waived his right to terminate by continuing to occupy the premises and pay rent after the landlord's failure to provide the disclosure statement.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Larosa's continued occupation of the premises and payment of rent after the landlord's breach of section 13(1) of the Act constituted a waiver of his right to terminate the lease under section 14(1). The Court was required to determine the legal effect of a tenant's actions following a landlord's failure to provide a timely disclosure statement, and whether such actions could extinguish the statutory right to terminate.

Judge Burchardt found that the right to terminate under section 14(1) of the Act is a statutory right that cannot be waived by conduct. The Court reasoned that the purpose of section 13 and section 14 of the Act is to protect tenants by ensuring they receive essential information before entering into a lease. Allowing a landlord to argue waiver would undermine this protective purpose. Therefore, Mr. Larosa's continued occupation and rent payments did not amount to a waiver of his right to terminate the lease. The Court ordered that the lease be terminated.