A law firm acting for the landowner and his company in a large-scale property development failed to include a critical clause in the joint venture agreement. The court is yet to determine the damages, but the losses claimed are in excess of $100 million. The missing clause would have made all joint venturers liable for […]
Missing clause held to have caused loss of millions for developer Read More »
711 Hogben Pty Ltd v Anthony Tadros – Relief Against Forfeiture and Costs [2022] NSWSC 1653 After a seven year litigation battle with their landlord, during which its lease was terminated, commercial tenants were granted relief against forfeiture. In 2015, the tenants entered into an agreement to lease premises to operate a child care centre.
Every lease contains a covenant of quiet enjoyment, either in writing or implied by law. The right to quiet enjoyment refers to the tenant’s right to possess and fully use leased property without interference from the landlord during the course of the tenancy. There is a proviso, though: the use must be ordinary and lawful.
When entering into a lease, the law automatically implies an obligation on the landlord not to substantially deprive the lessee of the benefit being given under the lease. By this obligation, landlords are prevented from takes steps that derogate (ie: detract or take away from) the grant of the lease by making the property materially
Relief against forfeiture is a remedy allowing a tenant to return to leased premises where the landlord has re-entered due to breach of a lease. A court will usually grant relief on the condition that payment is made of any outstanding rent. Our firm has recently acted in two significant matters with published decisions where
