“Hotel” does not require accomodation

  • Author : Samuel Hopper - 31-05-2011

Deputy President Macnamara at VCAT recently held that a permitted purpose in a lease provided as “hotel” was synonymous with “pub”, and that the term “hotel” in modern parlance does not necessarily mean the tenant must provide accommodation.

This is useful for people settling leases of pubs and hotels.

However, it does not address the “difficult question” of whether a lease of serviced apartments is a retail premises lease (see Meerkin v 24 Redan Street Pty Ltd [2007] VCAT 2182, Deputy President Macnamara; 16 November 2007).

Thanks to Jordon Ross, who appeared in the case, for providing a copy of the decision to me.

The case does not yet appear on AustLii.  If readers would like a copy of the decision, it is attached here: Bay Street Rose Pty Ltd v Christopoulos.

About the Author

Samuel Hopper

Recent Posts

CTRS Regulations – 30 September 2021 is approaching fast …

Samuel Hopper Date: 23-09-2021

CTRS Regulations – My First Comments

Samuel Hopper Date: 24-08-2021

Wait times in the Building and Property list at VCAT

Samuel Hopper Date: 20-08-2021

CRTS extension has been gazetted and published

Samuel Hopper Date: 23-12-2020

First VCAT decision about the CTRS…

Samuel Hopper Date: 05-11-2020

Double win for the Tigers and a win for tenants in the Court of Appeal

Samuel Hopper Date: 19-10-2020