Loading

“Profits method” of rental valuation does not breach s.37 of Retail Leases Act 2003

Author : Robert Hay KC - 28-04-2015

The question of whether the “profits method” of determining rentals for hotel premises contravenes s.37(2) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) has finally been determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Under the “profits method” the valuer estimates the income and expenses of the business with the difference between the two estimates being the net profit. The method entails the cost of fitting out and similar work being brought into the calculation since it is a cost which will be born by the lessee in order to make a profit. The usual means of doing this is to estimate the capital cost involved and “rentalise” it over the period of the expected life of the equipment with the “rentalised” sum being an item of expenditure to be put into the notional accounts. See: Hill and Redman’s Law of Landlord and Tenant.

Uncertainty has surrounded the use of the “profits method” because s.37(2) directs the valuer to determine the current market rent as the rent that would be reasonably be expected to be paid for the premises if they were unoccupied and also directs the valuer “not to take into account the value of goodwill created by the tenant’s occupation or the value of the tenant’s fixtures and fittings”.


In the important decision of Epping Hotels Pty Ltd v Serene Hotels Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 104 (which was an appeal from VCAT) Croft J decided that the valuer’s use of the “profits method” in determining the rent of a hotel and gaming venue did not infringe s.37(2).
His Honour agreed with the Tribunal that the critical question was whether the valuer had taken into account the value of the sitting tenant’s fixtures and fittings contrary to s.37(2).
The valuer had excluded the acquisition costs of the sitting tenant’s gaming machines and gaming entitlements from the rent determination but had taken into account the fittings and fixtures that the hypothetical future tenant owned.
His Honour held that while the valuer had not followed strictly the methodology referred to above, the valuer had not taken the sitting tenant’s fixtures and fittings into account and had properly assumed that the premises were unoccupied. Therefore the valuation did not breach s.37(2).
The decision will be a great relief for valuers of hotels and similar premises.
His Honour also decided that the Tribunal had erred because it had not taken into account a supplementary report by the valuer: the supplementary report formed part of the valuer’s reasoning in the rental determination.

About The Author

Robert Hay KC

Recent Posts

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Estate agents commission fiasco to be fixed

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Landlords likely to consider gross leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Solak not followed in Victorian fraud case

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Franchisees beware of arbitration clauses

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

“Terms contract” anomaly confirmed

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 32 statements should disclose leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Advisers must consider registration of leases

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Changes to excluded retail premises

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenant cannot question the landlord’s title

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Option not exercised because of default

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale available

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The Mortgagee’s Power of Sale out soon

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Farewell Landlord and Tenant Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Consequences of repeal of Fair Trading Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Farewell to the Fair Trading Act

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The PPSA – where does one start?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Beware national lease registration system

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenants wins claim for new 5 year term

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Why no requirement for a s.146 notice?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 172 of Property Law Act explained

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Meaning of “terms contract” examined

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Swanton’s case doubted

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Beware of lease variations

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Ministerial determination valid

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Ministerial determination not invalid

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tenancy in common trumps joint tenancy

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Whoops! Error in start date for Part 2D

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Setting off damages claims against the rent

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Deposits in sales of land

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Deemed assignments and landlord’s consent

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

s.42(2)(e) of Transfer of Land Act 1958

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Section 146 notices

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

The fog is beginning to clear

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

What is the effect of a nominee clause?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Everything must be in writing

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

When does a deposit become a penalty?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Tan v Russell now on austlii

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Priority between mortgagee and lessee

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

When will a deposit be a penalty?

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Caps on rent increases permitted

Robert Hay KC

Date : 18-10-2019

Loading
“Profits method” of rental valuation does not breach s.37 of Retail Leases Act 2003 | Greens List