Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MAY 2018

Misleading and deceptive conduct – a tenant request for exclusivity

This leasing case was also another reminder about how difficult it is to win misleading and deceptive conduct cases.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

A recent NSW case dealt with a tenant's claim that the landlord made representations which were misleading and deceptive when dealing with a tenant's request for exclusivity. The landlord represented that the tenant would be the only independent fresh fruit and vegetable shop in the Fresh Food Precinct and as such should pay higher rent. Later in the negotiations, the landlord knew that Franklins (in the Fresh Food Precinct) were going to expand its offering to include fresh fruit and vegetables.

The tenant's claim failed. The Court found that Franklins was not "independent" and in any event the landlord's representation was not about the future. However, it is another reminder about how difficult it is to win misleading and deceptive conduct cases.

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.

See more popular content from