Landlord liable to pay compensation under s.54 of Retail Leases Act

Tenants commonly complain about water entering leased premises and affecting their use and enjoyment of a tenancy. In National Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Regal Hotels Pty Ltd [2013] VCAT 413 a landlord was held to be liable to pay compensation to a tenant under s.54 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 despite there being no defects in the leased premises. The tenant complained on many occasions to the landlord about water entering the premises.  The tenant sued for damages relying, among other provisions, s.54 of the Act. Section 54 implies into a  lease a requirement that the landlord pay reasonable compensation to the tenant for loss or disruption suffered by the tenant because the landlord fails to, among other things, take reasonable steps to prevent or stop signficant disruption with the landlord’s control to the tenant’s trading at the premises.  Despite the cause of the water entering the premises being damage to storm water drains outside the leased area and there being no defects in the premises, the Vice President, Judge Jenkins held that the landlord was liable to pay the tenant damages of  $35,000. Judge Jenkins held that the landlord was liable to pay compensation under s.54(2) of the Act because it had “breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing or refusing to take steps which were reasonably available to it”, the breach being that the landlord had not kept the tenant informed of progress or investigations or provide it with any reports or advice and did not engage its own engineering or plumbing consultant to give advice and undertaken appropriate investigations.  It is  respectfully submitted that the decision shows a misunderstanding of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and imposes obligations on landlords that are not supported by the Act. Pursuant to a provision in the lease the tenant also entitled to an abatement of rent for the period when the premises was unfit for use.

Advertisements

, , ,

  1. #1 by Glen Thorpe on April 19, 2013 - 7:57 am

    It also shows a lack of understanding of the nature of property. A leak can be difficult to find its source. and difficult to rectify whilst raining. You can only test the repairs during the next rain. I wonder if this would be the case if the lease had a clause indemnifying the landlord from water penetration. Or does the act over ride any lease clause. I know we have had leaks that have taken many many months to locate and rectify. I gather if we do not involve the tenant in this process then it does not matter what we do, is that correct.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Owners Corporations Law

Developments in strata body corporate law in Victoria

The Warne Account

The blog of Dan Warne, Australian tech writer.

Best Practices for Legal Education

A Vision and a Road Map

Tisher Liner FC Law Blog

Legal Updates on Business Law, Property and Litigation

THE NSW BAR -- A COMMENTARY

AN ASSOCIATION OF UNCOMMON PEOPLE

With Compliments

Geoffrey Gibson

CommBar Matters

Commentary and case law from the Commercial Bar Association's finest.

The law of land and sea

Australian law of property and environment

Amicae Curiae

Women. Law. Legal Education. Legal Practice. Career. Work/Life balance

Carrie Rome-Sievers, Barrister

Developments in insolvency and commercial law

Equity, Trusts and More

Travis Mitchell, Barrister at the Victorian Bar

Sam Ure

A Melbourne barrister practising in commercial disputes, tax and administrative law

The Property Law Blog

Robert Hay QC Property and Commercial Law Barrister

%d bloggers like this: