
Tenancy judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for summary dismissal, recognising the potential for unconscionable conduct by the landlord under the Retail Leases Act 1994. The claimant argued that the landlord's silence in response to a request to exercise an option constituted unconscionable conduct.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that a tenant was entitled to compensation after an air conditioner in their rental property broke down, making the premises uncomfortable to live in during a particularly hot summer season.
The tenant sued the landlord for damages due to breaches of covenants in their lease agreement. The court ruled in favour of the tenant, awarding damages for the breaches.
The court found that the landlord unreasonably refused consent to the assignment of a lease. The plaintiffs, who were tenants, wanted to assign their lease to new buyers. The court determined that the new buyers were competent and financially capable, and therefore the landlord's refusal was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because evidence related to legal advice was improperly excluded during the original trial. The decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including legal advice, in lease disputes.
The Tribunal ruled that the lease was assigned to the claimant on the date specified in the Deed, subject to the conditions outlined, including the requirement for a bank guarantee. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Retail Leases Act 1994 and the Conveyancing Act 1919.
The court decided that an option to extend a lease was validly exercised even though there were minor procedural issues. The decision was based on interpreting the notice according to what a reasonable commercial person would understand.
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled in favour of a tenant who wanted to prevent a landlord from leasing premises for a hot bread shop. The tenant successfully argued that the lease included a specific covenant prohibiting such use.
The High Court dismissed an appeal by a shopping centre owner who wanted to build stalls in common areas leased to tenants. The court ruled that a person could not take over parts of the common areas for its own purposes, upholding the rights of a person under their lease agreements.