Loading

Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors – enforceability of maintenance obligations

Author : Samuel Hopper SC - 13-06-2011

his post is the second in a series of posts discussing the judgment in Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors [2011] VSC 242.

The main clause relied upon by the Receivers of the land owning companies in their s 146 notices was clause 6(b), which required the tenant to:

… establish, tend and manage the Plantation Crop in a proper and skilful manner and in accordance with sound silvicultural and environmental practices adopted in the forestry industry and as and when appropriate prepare, cultivate, spray herbicides and insecticides, plant seeding trees, fertilise and Harvest the Plantation Crop.


Primary RE argued that:

  • clause 6(b) is ambiguous and uncertain and incapable of enforcement because ‘proper’ and ‘sound’ practices were unclear and there was no established general practice within the forestry industry; and
  • the tenant was entitled to know what to do to remedy the default.

The Receivers argued that:

  • the clause is not ambiguous or uncertain;
  • courts can have regard to external standards such as what is ‘reasonable’ to add flesh to the contract;
  • those standards were well established by reference to the Great Southern’s own internal manuals and published codes of practice; and
  • Primary RE’s own expert had no difficulty with the concept.

The Court accepted the receivers’ submissions and found that the expressions in clause 6(b) of the lease were:

  • well understood by an informed independent bystander in the position of the landlords and the tenant, as having meaning and capable of practical application;
  • the relevant expressions in clause 6(b) were deliberately framed to allow for advances in science, technology and conditions; and
  • the kind of precision in the lease demanded by Primary RE would frustrate effective management through over prescription.

I think this discussion provides a useful example of how a modern court will interpret relatively broad provisions in a lease and is recommended reading for practitioners who regularly draft or litigate leases.

This discussion can be located at paragraphs [67] to [75] of the judgment.

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
Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd & Ors – enforceability of maintenance obligations | Greens List