Can the landlord require the tenant to pay the costs of complying with s 251 of the Building Act?

  • Author : Robert Hay QC - 13-04-2012

Yesterday I posted an article about s 251 of the Building Act 1993. The effect of s 251 is that if the owner of a property is required by the Act or by the Building Regulations 2006 to keep premises in a specified state:

(i)  the owner cannot contract out of those obligations by, for example, including provisions in a lease that make the tenant liable to repair the particular items; 

(ii)  a tenant can do the work that the landlord was obliged to do and recover the costs from the landlord owner; and

(iii) a tenant can set-off the costs of doing the work that the landlord owner was obliged to do against the rent.


 

After the article was posted I was asked if the landlord could recover from the tenant the costs of complying with s 251.  Section 39 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 permits the landlord to recover outgoings from the tenant in specified circumstances.  Section 41(1) of the 2003 Act makes void a provision in a lease that requires the tenant to pay an amount in respect of capital costs.  In my view, s 251 would take precedence over s 39 of the 2003 Act with the consequence that the costs of complying with s.251 would not be recoverable.

About the Author

Robert Hay QC

Recent Posts

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale

Robert Hay QC Date: 18-10-2019

“Retail premises leases” cannot jump out of the Retail Leases Act 2003

Robert Hay QC Date: 04-10-2019

Retail premises leases can “jump out” of the Retail Leases Act

Robert Hay QC Date: 01-08-2019

High Court affirms traditional test for enforcing oral contracts based on acts of part performance

Robert Hay QC Date: 20-11-2018

Estate agents’ commission fiasco to be fixed

Robert Hay QC Date: 26-06-2018

VCAT loses jurisdiction to hear a dispute where a party is not resident in Victoria

Robert Hay QC Date: 24-04-2018