Seacrest Pty Ltd v Apriaden Pty Ltd - [2000] VSCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 4222 of 1999

SEACREST PTY. LTD. and
BRATSK PTY. LTD.

Appellants

APRIADEN PTY. LTD.

Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, ORMISTON and PHILLIPS, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 75

---

LANDLORD AND TENANT – Retail premises lease – Option to renew – Notice of exercise – Whether ineffectual owing to defaults – Effect of landlord's failure to give statutory notice of date after which option no longer exercisable.

Retail Tenancies Act 1986 s.14.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	M.B. Phipps, Q.C. M. Carroll	Fetter Gdanski
For the Respondent	G.H. Golvan, Q.C. M. Ridgeway	James Taylor & Co.

BROOKING, J. A.:

The facts in this case may be stated in a simplified way, sufficient to expose the questions it raises. The appellants (“the landlords”) let a shop in a shopping plaza to the respondent (“the tenant”) by a lease which was a retail premises lease within the meaning of the Retail Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). The term was to expire on 30 April 1998. Under the lease the tenant had an option to renew, which had to be exercised not less than three months before the expiration of the term. It makes no difference whether this meant that the last day for the exercise of the option was 30 or 31 January 1998, for in fact notice of exercise of the option was given on 29 January 1998. The formal validity of that notice was conceded. But the landlords contended that the purported exercise of option was ineffectual in view of the provisions of the lease requiring payment of rent, outgoings and other amounts, the events which had happened and the terms of s.14(5) of the Act, whereby:

“If a retail premises lease contains an option exercisable by the tenant to renew the lease for a further term, the only circumstances in which the option is not exercisable is (sic) if—
(a)the tenant has not remedied any default under the lease about which the landlord has given the tenant written notice; or
(b)the tenant has persistently defaulted under the lease throughout its term and the landlord has given the tenant written notice of the defaults.”

Disputes having arisen between the landlords and tenant, notice of dispute was given under s.21 of the Act and an arbitrator was appointed to determine the disputes. By his interim award, dated 22 December 1998, the arbitrator declared that the lease terminated by effluxion of time on 30 April 1998 and found that in consequence he had no jurisdiction under the Act to determine any further matter in the proceedings other than the question of costs and his own fees and expenses. He upheld the landlords’ contention that the tenant had not been entitled to exercise the option, in that the case fell within both para. (a) and para. (b) of s.14(5).

In arriving at his conclusion that…

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 Seacrest Pty Ltd v Apriaden 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: [2000] VSCA 75
Decision Date: 11 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Seacrest Pty Ltd v Apriaden Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a lease agreement for retail premises, where the tenant, Seacrest, sought to exercise an option to renew the lease. The landlord, Apriaden, contended that the option was ineffectual due to defaults by Seacrest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the tenant's notice of exercise was valid, given the landlord's failure to provide statutory notice of the date after which the option could no longer be exercised. The court had to determine the effect of this statutory requirement under the Retail Tenancies Act 1986.

The court examined the statutory notice requirement under section 14 of the Retail Tenancies Act 1986, which mandates that the landlord must inform the tenant of the date after which the option can no longer be exercised. The court found that the landlord's failure to comply with this statutory obligation did not render the tenant's notice of exercise ineffectual. The court held that the statutory notice was a condition precedent to the enforcement of the option, but its non-compliance did not affect the validity of the tenant's notice of exercise. The court concluded that the tenant's notice remained valid, and the landlord's failure to provide the statutory notice did not preclude the tenant from exercising the option to renew.

The court ordered that the tenant's notice of exercise was valid and that the lease could be renewed. The court's decision ensured that the tenant's right to renew the lease was not unduly prejudiced by the landlord's failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement. This ruling provided clarity on the consequences of non-compliance with statutory notice provisions in retail tenancy agreements, reinforcing the tenant's rights under the Act.

Orders