Loading

Disclaimer of a lease not possible by the landlord’s liquidator

Author : Samuel Hopper SC - 08-02-2012

Her Honour Davies J in the Victorian Supreme Court has ruled that the liquidator appointed to a land owning company cannot use the disclaimer power under the Corporations Act to disclaim leases over that land.

In Willmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) & Ors [2012] VSC 29, handed down today, the Liquidators had entered contracts to sell land on which the Willmott forestry schemes' plantations were established. The Liquidators agreed to sell the freehold free of the Growers leasehold estates and sought judicial advice on whether the disclaimer power under s 568 of the Corporations Act could be used to extinguish the Growers' leases.

The Growers argued that the disclaimer power could not be used to extinguish their leases. The Growers' arguments were accepted.

This decision has significance for the restructure and liquidation of agricultural or forestry managed investment schemes. It prevents the Liquidator from unilaterally extinguishing Growers' leases (provided the Growers are not otherwise in default), affording the Growers a greater opportunity to restructure their schemes.


The decision also has wider significance. For example, a Liquidator could be appointed to a company that owned a large shopping centre. If the Liquidator could use the disclaimer power to extinguish shop owners' leases, then he or she may be able to disclaim a large number of leases in the centre. The Liquidator could then either sell the land free of those leases, re-let the shops at a higher rent or try to extract higher rent from sitting tenants. This would, in turn, increase the value of the freehold for the benefit of the company's creditors at the expense of shop owners. Her Honour Davies J's decision, it appears, prevents this from happening.

As far as I am aware, the use of the disclaimer power in this way was first raised before Robson J in Re Timbercorp Securities Ltd (in Liq) (No 3) (2009) 74 ACSR 626 [2009] VSC 510. It was also argued before Davies J in BOSI Securities Services Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 84 ACSR 341; [2011] VSC 255 and before Dodds-Streeton J in Willmott Forests Ltd, in the matter of Willmott Forests Lit (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) [2011] FCA 1517. However, this is the first time that an Australian court has ruled on this question.

Congratulations to Garry Bigmore QC and Matthew Kennedy, instructed by Clarendon Lawyers, whose submissions were accepted by the Court.

About The Author

Samuel Hopper SC

Recent Posts

The RLA 2003 permits a ‘late exit’ part 2

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Epping Hotel v Serene Hotels appeal

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

More on outgoings …

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

A general update for the leasing community…

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Willmott appeal heard

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Retail Tenancies Amendment Bill 2012

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

More on disclaimer of a lease – part 2

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

The Mortgagee’s Power Sale 3rd edition out soon

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

More on disclaimer of a lease

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Is a serviced apartment a retail premises lease?

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Calderbank offers in the retail tenancies list

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

More on s 251 of the Building Act

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Michael Redfern

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

‘Use’ in an Alpine lease defined – part II

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

‘Use’ in an Alpine lease defined

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

FEA decision – special leave application filed

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Third floor determination

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

New Small Business Commissioner appointed

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Third floor determination part 3

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Third floor determination – part II

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Recent press over shopping centre leases

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Adverse possession of disused laneways

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Relief from forfeiture of a franchise agreement

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Quirk in s.64 nothing to get excited about

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Article – interview of Mark McInnes

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Managed Investment Scheme discussion paper

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

“Hotel” does not require accomodation

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Setting off costs of capital works

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Is an eBay business a retail premises?

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Rent payable “without deduction”

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

First comments the new CTRS Regs

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

CTRS Regulations – My First Comments

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

CRTS extension has been gazetted and published

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

First VCAT decision about the CTRS…

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

VCAT jurisdiction over interstate residents

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Practice note: When is a road not a road?

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

‘or’ means ‘or’ in 15 year determination

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Appeal – is an Airbnb guest a sub-tenant?

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

A hidden trap in s 28 notices

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Lifestyle appeal refused

Samuel Hopper SC

Date : 25-03-2020

Loading
Disclaimer of a lease not possible by the landlord’s liquidator | Greens List