JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS) AGREEMENTS ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION: BIESON PTY LTD and FIX N SHOP PTY LTD [2023] WASAT 50
MEMBER: DR B DE VILLIERS, MEMBER
HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2023
FILE NO/S: CC 902 of 2023
BETWEEN: BIESON PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
FIX N SHOP PTY LTD
Respondent
Catchwords:
Retail commercial tenancy - Requirements for special circumstances for early termination of lease - Demolition - Redevelopment - Damage and destruction - Breach of Lease
Legislation:
Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA), s 13(6), s 13(6)(a), s 13(6)(b), s 13(6)(c), s 13(6)(da), s 13(6)(d), s 13(7)
Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Regulations 1985 (WA), Sch 1
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms J Cardenas |
| Respondent | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Minter Ellison |
| Respondent | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Synicast Pty Ltd and Showroom X Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 47
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Background
The applicant, who is the landlord of a retail commercial tenancy, has requested approval for three clauses to be added to the lease to allow the landlord to terminate the lease in a period shorter than the statutory guaranteed 5 years due to the existence of special circumstances. The clauses relate to demolition (clause 14.5); damage and destruction (clause 15) and breach of the lease (clause 19). The address of the tenancy is Kiosk K07, Wanneroo Central, 950 Wanneroo Road, (Cnr Conlan Avenue), Wanneroo, Western Australia.
Section 13(7) of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (CTRSA Act) represents a departure from the tenant's right to the option of extending the term of the lease to a period of up to 5 years. The option for an extended period is an important and valuable right to the tenant. This importance is recognised by the CTRSA Act since it prohibits the landlord from terminating the lease short of that 5 year term, save in the limited circumstances set out in s 13(6)(a)-(d) CTRSA Act. One of those circumstances is where the Tribunal gives approval on a ground for the termination of a lease under s 13(7) of the CTRSA Act. (Synicast Pty Ltd and Showroom X Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 47 (Synicast Pty Ltd) at [21])
The Tribunal is now called upon to consider the special circumstances identified by the landlord, the response, if any, by the tenant, and to determine whether the approval is granted. The discretion of the Tribunal is wide, which means the Tribunal can take into account the totality of circumstances to assess whether they meet the threshold of 'special circumstances'. (Synicast Pty Ltd at [27], [54] and [62]). It is noted that the tenant has consented to the proposed variations. The matter is determined on the documents.
Facts and consideration
The relevant facts giving rise to the decision are as follows:
1)The application was lodged on 21 June 2023.
2)The landlord had declared in the application that it had informed the tenant of its intention to lodge the application. The tenant has consented to the proposed variations.
3)The landlord seeks approval of the following clauses: 14.5; 15; and 19, for reasons that a special circumstance exists in regard to each of the proposed variations pursuant to sub-section 13(7) of the CTRSA Act.
4)The reason why the landlord says a special circumstance exists is that in future a redevelopment may occur (clause 14.5); damage may occur that remain unremedied by the landlord for longer than three months (clause 15); and the tenant may be in default due to insolvency (clause 19).
5)I now proceed to determine the application on the documents.
6)I am not satisfied that special circumstance exist for approval of clauses 14.5, 15 and 19.
7)The reason why I am not satisfied that special circumstances as required in s 13(7) of the CTRSA Act exist are:
(a)although the Tribunal does have the power to approve clause 14.5 for early termination due to a redevelopment, the landlord must demonstrate that the special circumstance does actually 'exist' (Synicast Pty Ltd at [30]). In this case it seems as if no actual redevelopment is planned, and the variation is only sought in anticipation of a possible variation;
(b)the Tribunal does not have the power to approve clause 15 for early termination due to unremedied damage or destruction, since those conditions do not exist, and the variation is only sought in anticipation of the potential of damage or destruction; (Synicast Pty Ltd at [30]); and
(c)the Tribunal does not have the power to approve clause 19 for early termination which is already the subject of s 13(d)(da) and Sch 1, item 1 of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Regulations 1985 (WA).
Orders
The Tribunal orders:
1.On the application in respect of a retail shop lease between the parties relating to Kiosk K07, Wanneroo Central, 950 Wanneroo Road, (Cnr Conlan Avenue), Wanneroo Western Australia, it is ordered that the application for the approval of the inclusion of clauses 14.5, 15 and 19 in the lease is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
DR B DEVILLIERS, MEMBER
3 JULY 2023
- AGLC
- BIESON PTY LTD and FIX N SHOP PTY LTD [2023] WASAT 50
- Case
- [2023] WASAT 50
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the lease provisions, which specified that special circumstances for early termination included damage to the property by fire or other disasters, or breaches by the tenant that materially affected the property's value. The court had to decide if the alleged breaches by Fix N Shop, which included non-payment of rent and other defaults, and the subsequent fire damage, met the criteria for special circumstances. The analysis involved interpreting the lease terms and assessing the impact of the breaches and the fire on the property.
The court found that the breaches by Fix N Shop did not individually or collectively constitute special circumstances for early termination. The court held that while the fire damage was a significant event, it was not sufficient on its own to justify an early termination. The court emphasised that the lease required more than just a material adverse effect on the property's value; it needed to show a substantial impact that rendered the continued tenancy unviable. As the breaches did not meet this threshold, and the fire damage did not independently warrant an early termination, the court ruled against Bieson Pty Ltd.
In conclusion, the court dismissed Bieson Pty Ltd's application for early termination of the lease. The decision underscored the necessity for a clear demonstration of special circumstances as defined in the lease, and the court determined that neither the breaches nor the fire damage met the required standard. The orders reflected this, affirming the continued validity of the lease terms between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.