Loading

Primary RE Ltd v Great Southern Property Holdings Ltd – are purported forestry rights in fact leases?

Author : Samuel Hopper SC - 12-06-2011

Given the number of issues raised in the Primary RE case and the size of the judgmnent (114 pages!), I thought it would be useful for those following this blog to have a separate post on each issue in the judgment.

The first and, perhaps, one of the less complicated issues considered in the Primary RE case was the treatment of forestry rights for the purposes of termination.

In some of the jurisdictions in which the plantations were established, the scheme operators granted forestry rights instead of leases. A forestry right is a statutory form of profit a prendre.

Primary RE argued that the relevant forestry rights were in fact leases in all but name and that the creators of the scheme had chosen to grant forestry rights as a device to overcome prohibitions of subdivision.


As a result, the forestry rights were leases and could only be terminated by service of a s 146 notice. Primary also argued that the s 146 notices were invalid, and, accordingly, so was the purported termination based on those notices (the validity of the s 146 will notices be discussed in another post).

The receivers argued that the forestry rights were not leases and that notice under s 146 was not required.

The Court found that the forestry rights were leases in all but name because they effectively granted exclusive possession to the former responsible entity and that s 146 notices were, accordingly, required.

Lawyers drafting and, importantly, terminating agreements that may arguably be leases in all but name to consider serving a s 146 notice.

A common example is a franchise outlet licence. Many franchisors take a lease of the relevant shop then grant a contractual licence to the franchisee. The outlet licence gives to the franchisee rights very similar to the rights of a tenant. Lawyers for franchisors should consider serving a s 146 notice on the franchisee before terminating an outlet licence. The absence of a s 146 notice may also give franchisees leverage after purported termination.

The relevant discussion takes place at paragraphs [84] to [93] of the Primary RE 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 – are purported forestry rights in fact leases? | Greens List