Assignment of reversion on put option contained in a lease : what is the effect?

Justice Mullins of the Queensland Supreme Court recently considered the status of a put option contained in a registered lease in circumstances where there was an assignment of the reversion. The matter arose for determination in Denham Bros Ltd v W Freestone Leasing Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 307. The decision is of interest as a lease containing a put option, exercisable by a landlord, is perhaps less commonly encountered than a lease containing a call option, exercisable by a tenant.

Commercial developments in airport precincts : lease and valuation issues : preliminary study

Over the past 30 years the nature of airport precincts has changed significantly from purely aviation services to a full range of retail, commercial, industrial and other non aviation uses. Most major airports in Australia are owned and operated by the private sector but are subject to long term head leases to the Federal Government, with subsequent sub leases in place to users of the land. The lease term available for both aviation and non aviation tenants is subject to the head lease term and in a number of Australian airport locations, these head leases are now two-thirds through their initial 50 year lease term and this is raising a number of issues from a valuation and ongoing development perspective. . For our airport precincts to continue to offer levels of infrastructure and services that are comparable or better than many commercial centres in the same location, policy makers need to understand the impact the uncertainty that exists when the current lease term is nearing expiration, especially in relation to the renewed lease term and rental payments. This paper reviews the changes in airport precinct ownership, management and development in Australia and highlights the valuation and rental assessment issues that are currently facing this property sector.

Assignment of lease between lessees as joint tenants-is lessor’s consent required?

The decision of Lockrey v Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 654 raises an interesting issue about the necessity of seeking the consent of the lessor where there is an assignment of a lease between joint tenants who already hold the lease when one joint tenant sells the business operated on the leased premises to the other joint tenant. A secondary issue raised by the proceedings concerns whether the lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld under the processes under Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (“the Act”) upon the grounds of lack of provision of information as to the remaining lessee’s financial standing.

Breaches of lease between exercise of option to renew and expiry of lease in Queensland

The decision of Greppo v Jam-Cal Bundaberg Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 131 illustrates a defect in s 128 of the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) which gives a right to a lessee to apply for relief against forfeiture against loss of a right to exercise an option to renew. The defect arises because the legislation does not adequately deal with breaches that occur after the exercise of the option but before the expiry of the lease. Most commercial leases of all kinds have a standard provisions, as the lease in this case, as a conditions of the exercise of the option to renew that the lessee will have given notice of exercise within the time specified to the lessor and will have up to the date of expiry of the lease paid all rent and observed all lessee’s covenants. The difficulties occur because invariably an option must be exercised before the expiry of the lease when a lessee may not be in breach of the lease but may later prior to the expiry of the lease fall into breach. As this decision indicates,at least in Queensland, that the lessee who desires to challenge the lessor’s right to enforce those conditions can neither seek relief under s 128 against forfeiture of the right to exercise the option ,or indeed, under s 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 to preserve the agreement for lease brought about by the otherwise regular exercise of the option to renew. The decision cries out for legislative reform along the lines of s 133E of the Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW) which was amended in 2001 to meet this contingency.

Gender Equality under the Charter of Fundamental Rights - a new lease for positive action?

This paper, which was published as a chapter of a Festskrift for Professor Ruth Nielsen, analyses Article 23 CFREU, the new provision on gender equality. It argues that Article 23 adds to the notion of gender equality in EU law, and not only allows, but also demands positive action measures if necessary to ensure equality between women and men. The provision also demands that positive action measures are suitable to achieve their aim. This implies that the EU legislator has to adapt positive action measure to the specific needs of the sector. The paper offers a critique of the proposal to introduce women quotas in board rooms, as proposed by the EU Commission in late 2012. It argues that the Commission unimaginatively copied rules developed for the German public service into a different sector, although these rules have not proven particularly efficient even in the public service. Consequently, a proposal that is demanding, but adapted to the sector should be developed.

Grant of Permission for lease of military lands from Sir Robert Prescott to Thomas Clark, 1798-1801.

Transcript (original spelling and grammar retained): By His Excellency Robert Prescott Esquire, Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over His Majestys Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, General and Commander in Chief of all His Majesty’s forces in the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and their several Dependencies and in the Island of Newfoundland &ca. &ca. &ca. I do hereby authorise and permit Thomas Clark of Queenstown in the County of Lincoln in the Province of Upper Canada merchant to take possession of all that Lot, piece and parcel of Land (being part of the land reserved by his Majesty for Military purposes) situate, lying and being at Queenstown in the Township of Newark, in the Home District in the said Province of Upper Canada, bounded and abutted as follows, that is to say beginning at the Distance of two Chains and ninety links from the South East End of his Majesty’s Store House, the said distance being measured along the Bank up Stream, thence South thirty nine degrees and an half West one Chain and fifty links thence south fifty degrees and an half East one Chain and thirty links thence North thirty nine degrees and an half East to the Edge of the Bank and from thence along the Bank to the place of beginning, containing thirty one perches and one hundred and twenty five square links and to occupy and hold the said Lot, piece and parcel of Land during pleasure subject nevertheless to the provisoes and Conditions herein after contained, that is to say. First on condition that it shall and may be lawful to and for His Majesty his Heirs and Successors and to and for the Commander in Chief of His Majesty Forces for the time being and to and for the Officer commanding his Majesty’s Forces in Upper Canada for the time being and to and for either of them to determine and make void this present permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot, Piece or Parcel of Land above described at any time hereafter whenever he or they shall see fit so to do without any compensation or indemnification to the said Thomas Clark or any other Person or Persons whosoever for any Loss Injury or Damage which he the said Thomas Clark or any other Person or Persons whosoever may thereby sustain. Secondly on this further Condition that it shall and may be lawful to and for His Majesty his Heirs and Successors and to and for his and their Officers, Soldiers and Servants at any time hereafter by order of the Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Forces for the time being or by order of the Officer commanding his Majesty’s forces in Upper Canada for the time being or by order of the Officer of His Majesty’s Corps of Royal Engineers commanding in the said Province of Upper Canada for the time being to enter upon the said Lot Piece and parcel of Land which the said Thomas Clark is hereby permitted to occupy during pleasure or upon any part thereof and to take down and from the said Lot piece and parcel of Land or from any part thereof to remove any dwelling House Store or other Buildings on the said Lot, piece or Parcel of Land or any part thereof erected and to remove any goods or Chattels on the said Lot piece and parcel of Land or on any part thereof or on any such dwelling House Store or other building found or being and that His Majesty his Heirs and Successors or any other Person or Persons whosoever shall not be liable or responsible to the said Thomas Clark or to any other Person or Persons whosoever for any Loss, Injury or Damage which he or they shall or may in such case sustain. Thirdly on this further Condition that the said Thomas Clark shall not erect on the said Lot Piece or Parcel of Land which the said Thomas Clark is hereby permitted to occupy during pleasure or upon any part thereof at any time or times hereafter any dwelling House store or other Building whatsoever of Stone or brick or of any other materials wood only exccepted and that if any dwelling House or Store or other building of Stone or brick or of any other materials except wood shall at any time be erected on the said Lot, piece or parcel of Land or upon any part thereof, then and in such case, this present permission and every Clause and Article thereof shall from thenceforth cease and determine and be absolutely and entirely null and void. And lastly on this further Condition that the said Thomas Clark or any other Person whosoever shall not assign this permission to occupy the said Lot, Piece or Parcel of Land above described to any Person of Persons whosoever, and if any such assignment shall be made by the said Thomas Clark or by any other Person in his right, or on his behalf, that then and in such case such assignment and this permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot piece and parcel of Land above described, and every Clause and Article thereof shall from thenceforth cease and determine and be absolutely and entirely null and void. Given under my hand at the Castle of St. Lewis in the City of Quebec in the Province of Lower Canada this Ninth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight and in the thirty eighth year of His Majesty’s Reign. [Signed here by Robert Prescott] By Order of the Commander in Chief [Signed here by James Green (Illegible signature)] I the said Thomas Clark above named do hereby accept the above written Permission to occupy during pleasure the said Lot piece and parcel of Land above described upon and subject to the several Provisioes and Conditions above written and each and every of them severally and respectively. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand the Sixteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight and in the thirty eighth year of His Majesty’s Reign. [Signed here by Thomas Clark] Signed in the presence of [Illegible signature – looks like J. M Donell Lt. Col.] [Illegible – looks like 2d. Battn R. C. Sm?] [Signed here by C. Anderson] Whereas Inconveniences did arise from the peculiar situation of the Ground contiguous to the above described Lot of Land and the occupation thereof, if estimated by the above Limits would prove highly disadvantageous to Mr. Thomas Clark be it known that in consideration thereof we do permit the above Lot to extend one half Chain more in length up stream so as to comprehend the space allowed for the Road between Lots Two + Three, and we do hereby appropriate the said additional space wholly to the use of the said Thomas Clark. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed this Thirteenth Day of October in the Year of our Lord one thousand Eight Hundred and one. [Signed here by J. M’Donell Lt. Col] 2d. Battn. R. C. [in?] Com of Fort George + Dependencies Robt. Pilkington Captain Royal Engineers

Indenture Lease by Timothy Street to Stroughton Moore

Indenture by which Timothy Street of Niagara Township allowed Stroughton Moore of Lewiston, New York to lease a brick house in the Village of St. Davids for $160.00 payable annually. Mr. Moore would also have use of half the barn. Ezekiel Woodruff was a witness to the signing of this lease, January 29, 1822.

Indenture Lease of Land by David Secord to Richard and William Woodruff

Indenture stating that David Secord of the Township of Niagara leased the dam of the sawmill pond in St. Davids to Richard and William Woodruff for 25 shillings per year for their mill business, May 2, 1824.

Lease Financing in India",

Several related articles have appeared ix: journals and dailies, covering mainly the advantages and disadvantages of leasing. Some have focussed on the leasing scenario in India while others projected the prospects of leasing. However, there are some research articles worth mentioning. An exploratory study done by R. Narayana Swamy expresses -the views of leasing companies, on lease accounting issues in India. It deals only with several aspects of accounting regulation, accounting standard setting, accounting proposals and implications and economic consequences of the proposals for leasing companies and for lessees and users of financial statamnts. Another article dealing with the growth and performance of leasing industry by Rita Vasanls gives just a peripheral view of the performance of leasing companies. Hence an indepth study is attempted to analyse the leasing industry in India, in all its manifestations