Reported Decision:
(2001) 10 BPR 18,553
[2001] ANZ ConvR 629
[2001] ACL Rep 245 NSW 25
(2002) NSW ConvR 55-997
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Young v Lamb & Ors [2001] NSWCA 225 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40661/00 HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2001 JUDGMENT DATE:
13 July 2001PARTIES :
Robert Francis Patrick Young v Kenneth John Lamb & OrsJUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Stein JA at 2; Hodgson JA at 63
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :ED 5096/98 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Austin J
COUNSEL: Appellant - M J Heath
Respondents - R ColquhounSOLICITORS: Appellant - Button Hawdon & McMahon
Respondents - Daryl A HurstCATCHWORDS: PROPERTY LAW - renewal of lease - whether option to renew exercised - whether an expression of an intention is binding - PROPERTY LAW - renewal of lease - service of notice of renewal - whether service on agent sufficient - COMPANY LAW - Partnership Act 1892 - whether had ostensible or implied authority - whether renewal of lease is business in the 'usual way' - D LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919 - s 170
Partnership Act 1892 - ss 5 and 6
Partnership Act 1890 (UK) - s 5CASES CITED: Ballas v Theophilos (No 2) (1957) 98 CLR 193
Bava Holdings Pty Ltd v Pando Holdings Pty Ltd (1998) NSW Conv R 55862
Beyfus v Greene (1856-57) VLT 348
Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 600
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115
Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v SRA (1982) 149 CLR 337
Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 541
James v Daniel [1894] 2 Ch 332
Mann v D'Arcy [1968] 2 All ER 172
Mandelberg v Adams (1930) 31 SR (NSW) 50
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Ganod & Anor [1962] 3 All ER 1103
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Health Minders Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 673
Quadling v Robinson (1976) 137 CLR 192
Townsend Carriers Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (1977) 33 Prop & Comp R 361
Union Bank of Australia v Fisher (1893) 14 LR (NSW) Eq 241
Zacharia v Ajay Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) (1983) 33 SASR 395DECISION: 1. Appeal upheld with costs. 2. Respondents to receive a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 for the costs of the appeal if otherwise entitled. 3. Set aside the orders made by the Court below. 4. In lieu thereof, declare that the respondents by letter dated 22 July 1998 validly exercised an option to renew the subject lease of Unit 15, Capital Coast Centre, Queen Street, Moruya and that the respondents have repudiated the agreement to renew the lease constituted by the exercise of the option. 5. The respondents pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below. 6. Remit to the Equity Division to assess the damages to be awarded…
Continue reading Young v Lamb
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Young v Lamb [2001] NSWCA 225
- Case
- [2001] NSWCA 225
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Young v Lamb*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning the renewal of a lease. The appellant, Young, sought to enforce an option to renew a lease against the respondents, Lamb. The central issue was whether the respondents had validly exercised this option.
The court was required to determine whether a letter sent by the respondents constituted a valid exercise of the option to renew the lease. This involved considering whether an expression of intention to renew was sufficient to bind the parties, and whether service of the notice of renewal on an agent of the lessor was effective. Furthermore, the court examined whether the agent possessed ostensible or implied authority to receive such notice, and whether the renewal of the lease constituted a transaction conducted in the 'usual way' of business for the purposes of the *Partnership Act 1892*.
The Court of Appeal found that the letter dated 22 July 1998 did validly exercise the option to renew the lease. The court reasoned that the expression of intention contained in the letter was sufficient to bind the parties to the renewal. It was also held that service of the notice on the agent was effective, as the agent had the necessary authority, whether ostensible or implied, to accept such notice. The renewal of the lease was considered to be a business transaction conducted in the usual way.
Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the orders of the court below were set aside. The Court of Appeal declared that the respondents had validly exercised the option to renew the lease and had subsequently repudiated the agreement to renew. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below, and the matter was remitted to the Equity Division to assess the damages payable to the appellant.
The court was required to determine whether a letter sent by the respondents constituted a valid exercise of the option to renew the lease. This involved considering whether an expression of intention to renew was sufficient to bind the parties, and whether service of the notice of renewal on an agent of the lessor was effective. Furthermore, the court examined whether the agent possessed ostensible or implied authority to receive such notice, and whether the renewal of the lease constituted a transaction conducted in the 'usual way' of business for the purposes of the *Partnership Act 1892*.
The Court of Appeal found that the letter dated 22 July 1998 did validly exercise the option to renew the lease. The court reasoned that the expression of intention contained in the letter was sufficient to bind the parties to the renewal. It was also held that service of the notice on the agent was effective, as the agent had the necessary authority, whether ostensible or implied, to accept such notice. The renewal of the lease was considered to be a business transaction conducted in the usual way.
Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the orders of the court below were set aside. The Court of Appeal declared that the respondents had validly exercised the option to renew the lease and had subsequently repudiated the agreement to renew. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below, and the matter was remitted to the Equity Division to assess the damages payable to the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal upheld with costs. 2. Respondents to receive a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 for the costs of the appeal if otherwise entitled. 3. Set aside the orders made by the Court below. 4. In lieu thereof, declare that the respondents by letter dated 22 July 1998 validly exercised an option to renew the subject lease of Unit 15, Capital Coast Centre, Queen Street, Moruya and that the respondents have repudiated the agreement to renew the lease constituted by the exercise of the option. 5. The respondents pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below. 6. Remit to the Equity Division to assess the damages to be awarded to the appellant.
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.