Ultra Tune Properties (Qld) No 2 Pty Ltd v DNR1 Pty Ltd

The case of Ultra Tune Properties (Qld) No 2 Pty Ltd v DNR1 Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the tenant, Ultra Tune Properties, and the landlord, DNR1 Pty Ltd, regarding the creation of a lease agreement. The matter was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The central issue in the case was whether the terms of the lease agreement were still under negotiation and whether the parties held a common intention to be bound by the agreement.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the negotiations for the lease agreement. It was found that the landlord had provided a draft lease accompanied by an express qualification that it did not intend to enter a legally binding agreement until negotiations had concluded and a lease had been signed. The court held that the landlord's conduct, including the provision of the draft lease and the express qualification, did not create or encourage an assumption or expectation that a binding agreement to lease was in existence. The court also found that the landlord's conduct was not unconscionable, and therefore, the estoppel claim by the plaintiffs failed.

In relation to the misleading or deceptive conduct claim, the court considered whether the landlord's silence about an alleged "change of heart" on granting a new lease was conduct likely to mislead or deceive. The court held that a reasonable person in the tenant's position would not have been misled or deceived by the landlord's silence, as the pace of the lease negotiations had been leisurely and the landlord had not fixed a time for a reply to the tenant's correspondence.

The court concluded that the landlord did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for relief in the form of a declaration, an injunction, and damages was unsuccessful.

Judgment was entered in favour of the defendant, DNR1 Pty Ltd, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.