• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Blog

Lessees beware – when your landlord does not want to recognise your option

In commercial leases, often a landlord will for various reasons not want the tenant to exercise its option to extend the lease term.  Those reasons could include: Regardless, tenants should always approach the exercise of their option carefully and formally, as it is easy to lose the option right if it is not exercised properly. First, the requirements for the proper exercise of the option must be complied with strictly to avoid a situation where the landlord is not bound by the exercise.  This means that the provisions of the lease dealing with the exercise of the option, and the requirements for the deliver of proper notices must be read, understood and followed.  Second, the notice must be given during the “option exercise window”, as the exercise is unlikely to be binding if it is done too early or too late. If proper notice is given at the correct time, under many leases and subject to our further comments, the landlord may be able to refuse to accept the valid exercise of the option if the tenant has previously breached the terms of the lease or is in breach of the terms of the lease at the time of the exercise of the option.  In this regard the rights of the parties are regulated to some extent by sec 128 of the Property Law Act which provides that – despite any stipulation in the lease to the contrary – if an act or omission of the lessee would have the effect of precluding the lessee from exercising the option, it will be deemed not to have had that effect where the option is exercised, unless during a period of 14 days next succeeding the purported exercise of the option, the lessor serves on the lessee “prescribed notice” of the act or omission, and the lessee is not successful in obtaining relief from the court against the effect of the breach.  The lessee must make its application for that relief within 30 days of receiving the landlord’s notice.  In other words, the tenant exercises the option and if the landlord wants to claim that it is not bound to extend the lease because of previous breaches, the landlord has to give a certain notice within a particular time and then the tenant has a limited time to apply to the court for orders excusing the effect of those breaches. A distinction however must be drawn between breaches of the lease which have occurred before the exercise of the option, and circumstances that occur after the exercise of the option.  Queensland courts have held that they do not have the ability to excuse the effect of matters that occur after the exercise of the option itself. The takeaway from all of this is that: For advice in relation to leasing, please contact our commercial lawyers Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au, Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com or Megan Sarroff at megans@qbmlaw.com.au

What if a Will is ambiguous?

In some cases, it is relatively easy to resolve the ambiguity, for example where a gift in a will fails because the subject matter of the will has been sold before the will maker died. There are however other circumstances where gifts are ambiguous, and where the consequences can be quite significant. Under section 33C of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), a court can have regard to evidence including that of the will maker’s intention, to help interpret language used in a will if the language (or part of it) is meaningless or ambiguous on the face of the will or in light of the surrounding circumstances. That can allow the court to adopt the “armchair principle” whereby the court sits in the position of the will maker to take into account their “habits of speech and family, property, friends and acquaintances” to determine the meaning of the gift. Evidence of the will maker’s intention however is not admissible, so the evidence of the instructions given to the solicitor who drafted the will cannot be used to interpret the will, which is somewhat of an odd outcome. These issues were considered in the recent Supreme Court decision of Dalziel v Gott & Ors [2024] QSC 276. The background to that matter is that Mr Gott made a will in 2012 in which the following gift was included: “I give and devise all my right, title and interest in and to house property “Florida”, 487 Main Western Road, Mt Tamborine (“my residence”) PROVIDED HOWEVER that should my residence have been sold during my lifetime then in lieu thereof…” As it happened, Mr Gott owned adjoining lots, Lot 5 on which a house and garage were built, and Lot 6 on which gardens were built. The question was whether the reference to “house property “Florida” was a reference to both Lots 5 and 6, or whether it was a reference to only Lot 5 upon which the residence was constructed. If it referred to both lots, then obviously the gift of the residence was more valuable to the beneficiary of that gift, and there would be a corresponding reduction in the value of the remainder of the estate. The court considered that there was ambiguity in the words used in light of the surrounding circumstances, and found that the will maker was referring to both Lots 5 and 6 in light of the surrounding circumstances, namely: The connection between the improvements on Lots 5 and 6 and the will maker’s treatment of them as being part of his home called “Florida”; and In a prior will, the will maker had specifically identified both Lots 5 and 6 and referred to them as being at the address nominated in the will. Of course, the decision demonstrates yet again the care that must be exercised by will makers to ensure that their wills are clear on their face. It also demonstrates why it is necessary to take complete instructions relating to all potential estate assets so as to resolve any conflict on the face of the will. For estate planning and advice concerning wills including disputes, please contact our lawyers Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au, Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com or Megan Sarroff at megans@qbmlaw.com.au

Home Made Wills

I was recently asked by a client if it was OK to use the “home made” wills from newsagents, and that prompted me to think of the numerous times that I have read cases where people made a will without a lawyer, and there was costly litigation as a result. We have reported on those cases on several occasions over the past few years, and it does made for good reading, the links are below. https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/yet-another-will-kit-disaster https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/yet-another-home-made-will-disaster-2 https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/will-kit-disaster-again https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/yet-another-home-made-will-disaster https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/do-you-need-a-lawyer-to-prepare-your-will https://www.qbmlawyers.com.au/is-your-will-valid Another decision which is worth reading is that of In the Will of Fernando Masci https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QSC14-281.pdf which is worth reading as it demonstrates how a badly drawn will can devastate an estate – in that matter the dispute continued for well over 2 years after the will maker died, resulting in 3 days of hearing in the Supreme Court before the judgment was delivered. For advice on estate planning and Wills, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au, or Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au

Can Co-owner Force the Sale of Property in Queensland?

Forcing a sale of a jointly owned property QLD… Is it possible? What to do? Read to find out! When people, including family members, buy property together, disputes can arise if one party wants to sell. Section 38 of the Property Law Act (QLD) allows a court, upon application by any co-owner, to appoint trustees to sell the property. This means a court can appoint individuals to handle the sale if one co-owner refuses to sell. Process of Selling Property Under Statutory Trustees The Property Law Act outlines how the property should be sold and the rights of co-owners to bid. Courts generally find there is “practically speaking no defense” to such an application (Goodwin v Goodwin [2004] QCA 50). Case Study: McPaul v Massignani and Anor [2023] QSC 98 In the recent Queensland Supreme Court case of McPaul v Massignani and Anor [2023] QSC 98, Chief Justice Bowskill addressed a situation where the appointment of statutory trustees was requested to sell a property. This case involved two sisters who had purchased a property together with the intention of joint development. When one sister decided to sell her share after learning that the property could not be subdivided. Whereas, the other sister opposed the sale based on a belief of long-term ownership. The court found that the evidence did not support an equitable right to prevent the sale. Clear and unequivocal language would be required to prevent someone from exercising their right to sell. The discussions about the property’s long-term ownership did not have the legal effect of blocking the sale. Importance of Planning for Co-Ownership Disputes This decision highlights the importance of seeking legal advice and planning for potential disputes when buying property together. Other circumstances, such as bankruptcy or death, can also lead to a forcing a sale of a jointly owned property QLD. Contact QBM Lawyers For advice in respect of co-ownership of properties and remedies if ownership arrangements breakdown, contact: Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au Megan Hanneman at meganh@qbmlaw.com.au