Legal Research
Cases
Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd

Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 25 October 2004 38 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Riltang P/L v L P/L [2004] NSWSC 977

HEARING DATE(S): 07/09/04, 29/09/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: White J

DECISION: See page 25 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: LANDLORD AND TENANT - Option for renewal - New lease to be on like terms and conditions of old lease - Whether clause required identical reproduction of covenant to contribute to increases in rates, taxes and outgoings from commencement of term. - CONTRACTS - Interpretation - Clause mistakenly included in new lease in identical terms to old lease - Clause having plain meaning - No absurdity or inconsistency - Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, [1998] 1 All ER 98 considered. - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction to make supplementary order where parties mistakenly implemented order for specific performance - Where liberty to apply or reservation of cause for further consideration not reserved.

CASES CITED: Mark Mayne Pty Ltd v Suburban Centres Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 67
Showa Shoji Australia Pty Ltd v Oceanic Life Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 548
Ashington Holdings Pty Ltd v Wypema Services Pty Ltd (1999) 9 BPR 17,315
Houssein v Under Secretary of Industrial Relations and Technology (NSW) (1982) 148 CLR 88
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163
Gerraty v McGavin (1914) 18 CLR 152
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Darin Nominees Pty Ltd v Franklins SelfServe Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 209
South Sydney Council v Royal Botanic Gardens (1999) 10 BPR 18,961
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 210 CLR 181
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896; [1998] 1 All ER 98
Peppers Hotel Management Pty Ltd v Hotel Capital Partners Ltd [2004] NSWCA 114
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1981) 147 CLR 297
Royal Botanic Gardens v South Sydney County Council (2002) 76 ALJR 436
Optus Vision Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby League Football League Ltd [2004] NSWCA 61
Burns Philp Hardware Ltd v Howard Chia Pty Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 642
Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381
Reardon Smith Line Limited v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Westpac Banking Corp v Tanzone Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 25
Australian Broadcasting Commission and Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Professor McLauchlan, "The New Law of Contract Interpretation", (2000) 19 New Zealand Universities Law Review 147
Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali [2002] 1 AC 251
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 208 ALR 213
European Bank Ltd v Citibank Ltd [2004] NSWCA 76
Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529
DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226
Phillips v Walsh (1990) 20 NSWLR 206
Fritz v Hobson (1880) 14 Ch D 542
Penrice v Williams (1883) 23 Ch D 353
Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson [1942] 2 KB 321
J A G Investment Pty Ltd v…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWSC 977
Decision Date: 25 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riltang Pty Ltd, as the tenant, brought a case against L Pty Ltd, the landlord, regarding the renewal of a lease agreement. The dispute centred around the interpretation of an option for renewal clause in the lease, specifically whether a new lease would need to replicate an existing covenant for contributing to increases in rates, taxes, and outgoings from the beginning of the term. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the option for renewal clause, focusing on whether the covenant for contributing to increases in rates, taxes, and outgoings should apply from the commencement of the new lease term. The court needed to determine if the clause in the new lease, which was mistakenly included in identical terms to the old lease, had a plain meaning and whether it led to any absurdity or inconsistency. The court considered the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society case to aid in its interpretation of the clause.

The court found that the clause in question had a plain meaning and did not result in any absurdity or inconsistency. The court relied on the principle that if a clause in a contract has a plain meaning and does not lead to any absurdity or inconsistency, it should be enforced as written. The court concluded that the clause in the new lease should be enforced as written, and the tenant was required to contribute to increases in rates, taxes, and outgoings from the beginning of the lease term. The court further held that it had jurisdiction to make a supplementary order where the parties mistakenly implemented an order for specific performance, and where liberty to apply or a reservation of cause for further consideration was not reserved.

The court ordered that the clause in the new lease be enforced as written, requiring the tenant to contribute to increases in rates, taxes, and outgoings from the beginning of the lease term. The court also made a supplementary order to correct the mistaken implementation of the order for specific performance.

Orders