Valuer and Retail Leases Update: Lease or Licence?

M
Madgwicks

Contributor

Madgwicks Lawyers has been serving clients since 1975 with reliable legal advice, clear explanations of outcomes, and practical options. Their deep expertise helps clients navigate complex matters by providing informed decision-making. The firm prioritizes developing long-term relationships with clients locally and globally, adding value beyond legal services. With over 100 staff and expertise in key practice areas, Madgwicks is an award-winning commercial firm. As part of Meritas, they are connected to a global alliance, offering business law services in 92 countries.
VCAT held that, by a review of the agreement, the intention of the parties was to create a licence and not a lease.
Australia Real Estate and Construction
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Brief

Whether a document is a lease or licence, will depend on a review of the document. If drafted appropriately, a document that purports to be a licence should in fact be a licence. If a licence is terminated by the owner, or its immediate licensor, a licensee may be entitled to seek relief against forfeiture (ie be put back in possession of the premises) at VCAT, but only if the owner or licensor has acted unconscionably.

What you need to know

If a document is called a “licence”, it may be a lease at law, which gives an occupant increased rights. For example, the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) may apply and the occupant may be entitled to seek relief against forfeiture at law. In such circumstances, legal advice is required as to whether the document is a lease, or a licence.

Background

In the recent decision of Sumbul Holdings Pty Ltd v LDZ Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2020] VCAT 1272, VCAT had to consider whether a document that purported to be a licence was a licence and not a lease.

The licence was of a butcher shop in Craigieburn, owned by Lendlease and leased to LDZ, which in turn granted a licence to Sumbul.

LDZ sought to terminate the licence for unpaid occupancy fees. VCAT had to determine whether the licence was in fact a lease and if Sumbul could seek relief against forfeiture. If it was a lease, Sumbul could seek relief against forfeiture and be put back into possession of the premises upon remedying the default under the lease.

VCAT determined that it needed to decide if Sumbul had exclusive possession of the premises. If it did, it was a lease. VCAT determined that Sumbul did not have exclusive possession of the premises. It was a matter of construction of the agreement and VCAT was satisfied that the intention of the parties was to create a licence and not lease.

As it was only a licence, could relief against forfeiture be granted? VCAT determined that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for relief against forfeiture of a licence, where the conduct of the terminating party is unconscionable. However, no unconscionability was found in this case.

Conclusion

If you are faced with a document that purports to be a licence, whether you represent an owner or an occupant, it is important to understand if it is a lease or a licence, as different consequences and rights flow. In such circumstances, legal advice is required.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Madgwicks is a member of Meritas, one of the world's largest law firm alliances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More