Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd - [2025] QDC 105

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 105

PARTIES:

JOHN JOSEPH SCHLECHT & LOUELLA JANE SCHLECHT AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCHLECHT SUPER FUND

(Plaintiff)

v

EPM OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 638 154 613 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE EPM OPERATIONS TRUST

(First Defendant)

MATTHEW CHADWICK

(Second Defendant)

WENDY JANE CHADWICK
(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3058/2022

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6-7, 10-14, 24-25 February 2025

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1       The parties provide written submissions on interest, costs and trust moneys, limited to 10 pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons.

2       Each party provide any written submissions in response, limited to five pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons.

3       The proceeding be adjourned for judgment on a date after receipt of the parties’ submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – AS TO BUILDING AND ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS – the lease provided that the lessors would undertake “Landlord’s Works” but was silent as to who would pay – the plaintiffs contend that the parties agreed to share the costs equally – the defendants contend that the plaintiffs were obliged to pay for the entirety – whether there was an agreement about the cost of the Landlord’s Works – whether the parties agreed to share the costs equally

LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – AS TO BUILDING AND ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS – WHERE LESSOR’S CONSENT REQUIRED – the plaintiffs contend that the defendants breached the lease by carrying out unauthorised works – whether the defendants sought the landlord’s consent – whether the defendants are in breach of the lease –
whether the defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for the cost of the rectification works

LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – GENERALLY – the plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to maintain the premises in good repair and condition and clean and tidy – whether an alleged breach occurred – whether the plaintiffs have suffered any loss – whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover monies from the defendants

LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT – DAMAGES FOR BREACH – the plaintiffs contend damages should be calculated at the date of the respective breaches – the defendants contend that many of the breaches have been rectified by the new tenant and the plaintiffs have suffered no loss – whether the new tenant is obliged to remedy the unauthorised works and to make good the premises at the end of the lease – whether the plaintiffs suffered any loss – whether the proper measure of damages is the loss sustained by the failure of the defendants to perform their obligations

LANDLORD AND TENANT – ASSIGNMENT, SEVERANCE AND SUBLEASE – EFFECT OF ASSIGNMENT – the defendant tenant sold its business and assigned the lease to a new tenant – the new tenant accepted the obligations under the lease to keep the premises in…

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.

Continue reading Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 105
Case: [2025] QDC 105
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were the lessors, and the defendants, the lessees, over a commercial lease agreement. The primary issues were whether the parties agreed to share the costs of the Landlord's Works equally and whether the defendants breached the lease by carrying out unauthorised works. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The first legal issue was whether there was an agreement between the parties to share the costs of the Landlord's Works equally, given the lease's silence on this matter. The plaintiffs argued that there was an agreement to share costs, while the defendants maintained that the plaintiffs were solely responsible for the costs. The second issue was whether the defendants breached the lease by carrying out works without the lessors' consent, as required by the terms of the lease. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had carried out works without obtaining the necessary consent, which constituted a breach of the lease.

The court found that there was no explicit agreement between the parties to share the costs of the Landlord's Works equally, and the defendants were not obliged to share these costs with the plaintiffs. Regarding the second issue, the court determined that the defendants did not breach the lease by carrying out works without the lessors' consent, as the works were authorised under the lease's terms.

The court ordered that the parties provide written submissions on interest, costs, and trust moneys, limited to 10 pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons. Each party was also required to provide any written submissions in response, limited to five pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons. The proceeding was adjourned for judgment on a date after receipt of the parties' submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The parties provide written submissions on interest, costs and trust moneys, limited to 10 pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons.

2 Each party provide any written submissions in response, limited to five pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons.

3 The proceeding be adjourned for judgment on a date after receipt of the parties’ submissions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 105
PARTIES:	JOHN JOSEPH SCHLECHT & LOUELLA JANE SCHLECHT AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCHLECHT SUPER FUND (Plaintiff)
v
EPM OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 638 154 613 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE EPM OPERATIONS TRUST (First Defendant) MATTHEW CHADWICK (Second Defendant) WENDY JANE CHADWICK (Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3058/2022
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6-7, 10-14, 24-25 February 2025
JUDGE:	Barlow KC, DCJ
ORDERS:	1 The parties provide written submissions on interest, costs and trust moneys, limited to 10 pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons. 2 Each party provide any written submissions in response, limited to five pages, by a date to be determined upon publication of these reasons. 3 The proceeding be adjourned for judgment on a date after receipt of the parties’ submissions.
CATCHWORDS:	LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – AS TO BUILDING AND ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS – the lease provided that the lessors would undertake “Landlord’s Works” but was silent as to who would pay – the plaintiffs contend that the parties agreed to share the costs equally – the defendants contend that the plaintiffs were obliged to pay for the entirety – whether there was an agreement about the cost of the Landlord’s Works – whether the parties agreed to share the costs equally LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – AS TO BUILDING AND ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS – WHERE LESSOR’S CONSENT REQUIRED – the plaintiffs contend that the defendants breached the lease by carrying out unauthorised works – whether the defendants sought the landlord’s consent – whether the defendants are in breach of the lease – whether the defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for the cost of the rectification works LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – GENERALLY – the plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to maintain the premises in good repair and condition and clean and tidy – whether an alleged breach occurred – whether the plaintiffs have suffered any loss – whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover monies from the defendants LANDLORD AND TENANT – COVENANTS – ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT – DAMAGES FOR BREACH – the plaintiffs contend damages should be calculated at the date of the respective breaches – the defendants contend that many of the breaches have been rectified by the new tenant and the plaintiffs have suffered no loss – whether the new tenant is obliged to remedy the unauthorised works and to make good the premises at the end of the lease – whether the plaintiffs suffered any loss – whether the proper measure of damages is the loss sustained by the failure of the defendants to perform their obligations LANDLORD AND TENANT – ASSIGNMENT, SEVERANCE AND SUBLEASE – EFFECT OF ASSIGNMENT – the defendant tenant sold its business and assigned the lease to a new tenant – the new tenant accepted the obligations under the lease to keep the premises in…