Loading

Section 146 notices

Author : Robert Hay KC - 14-07-2011

There is a common misconception that receipt of a valid notice under s 146(1) of the Property Law Act 1958 requires the tenant to rectify the defaults alleged within the time specified.

The purpose of a notice is to give the tenant an opportunity to consider its position and give a response: See: Primary RE Limited v Great Southern Property Holdings Limited [2011] VSC 242 [147]. If the breach is capable of remedy, an adequate response may be to admit the breach and propose a course of remediation. See: Primary RE [147]. In Primary RE the tenants had failed to comply with lease and forestry agreements. At [132] Judd J said that a “sufficient response” by the tenant to the notices would have been to undertake to recommence management of the plantations and perform its obligations under each lease and to agree to pay compensation for any damage to the reversion. At [147] His Honour said:


“…having received the noticed of default, a sufficient response from the tenant to avoid forfeiture, re-entry or termination, would have been to recommence management of the plantations in compliance with its obligations under each lease and forestry agreement, coupled with a proposal to pay reasonable compensation for any injury to the reversion. In my view it would not have been necessary for the tenant to do more in order to avoid the risk of termination, provided the tenant had the capacity and communicated a genuine intention to do as proposed. Nothing of the kind was communicated by the tenant to any of the landlords. The fact that the remediation work, identified in the notices, might take one or more years was not a determining factor in the calculation of a reasonable time within which to respond.”

As to what is a “reasonable time” for the lessee to respond to a statutory notice, Judd J said at [140} that this “depends upon the purpose for which the notice is given, the nature of the breaches alleged and what is required to be done to avoid forfeiture”. A reasonable time is not the time necessary to actually undertake the work.

The reference in s 146(1) "compensation" is directed to loss suffered as a consequence of damage to the reversion and is not “intended a substitute for remediation” ([133]). The landlord need not specify in the statutory notice the amount of “compensation” necessary to satisfy the demand.

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
Section 146 notices | Greens List