Murdock v Bettcher

The case of Murdock v Bettcher involved the appellants, who were tenants of commercial premises, and the respondent, the landlord, who had issued a notice of termination and a notice to quit due to the tenants' default. Despite these notices, the tenants did not vacate the premises, prompting the respondent to initiate proceedings for possession. The court granted an order for possession, which was stayed upon the tenants making monthly payments to the landlord. The central legal issues were whether these payments constituted rent and whether the tenants had acquired a five-year lease under section 20B of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 by holding over for six months. Additionally, the court had to determine if the proceedings were competent given the bankruptcy of one of the tenants. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The court examined the precedent set in Davenport v The Queen, where it was established that accepting rent after notice of forfeiture can waive the right to forfeiture. However, the court distinguished this case from the present one as proceedings for possession had already been initiated. Consequently, the court held that a protest accompanying the acceptance of rent does not negate the act of receiving rent, and this could not countervail the fact of receipt. The court concluded that the appellants had not demonstrated any grounds for this court to interfere with the District Court's order.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found no merit in the appellants' arguments. They had not shown that the court should intervene in the District Court's order. The reasoning of Debelle J was affirmed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellants were unsuccessful in their attempts to argue that the monthly payments were not rent, that they had acquired a five-year lease, or that the proceedings were improper due to the bankruptcy of one tenant.