Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 NOVEMBER 2007

The Clock Is Ticking On ´Pre-Lease´ Misrepresentations

Gadens Lawyers
Explore more from Gadens Lawyers

The Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal has recently upheld an appeal against important aspects of the landmark decision in Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies Bond & Associates Pty Ltd.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Daniel Fitzpatrick
Daniel Fitzpatrick

The Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) has recently1 upheld an appeal against important aspects of the landmark decision in Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies Bond & Associates Pty Ltd [2006]2.

The Appeal Panel's decision significantly alters the retail lease litigation landscape, in many cases introducing a six month limitation period on claims for compensation in respect of pre-lease misrepresentations.

The Armstrong Jones Litigation

In early September 2005 Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd (Landlord) terminated, for breach thereof, a retail lease of a shop in a newly established specialist 'bulk goods' furniture centre it had entered into with Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Ltd (Tenant) in October 2004. The Landlord filed a claim with the ADT seeking arrears of rent and damages for lost future rent. The Tenant filed a defence asserting that the Landlord had failed to mitigate its loss and a counter-claim seeking compensation for pre-lease

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.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Personal Guarantees In Commercial Leases: Risks For Directors

Directors who sign retail leases on behalf of company tenants often provide personal guarantees without fully understanding the scope of their liability. This liability can extend far beyond unpaid rent to include outgoings, interest, make-good costs, and enforcement expenses, persisting even after resignation or business sale. Understanding the distinction between guarantees and indemnities, and knowing when statutory protections may apply, is essential for directors seeking to limit their personal exposur
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Project Distress In Queensland: Lessons From The Bathla Collapse

The collapse of the Bathla Group has sent ripples through Australia's construction sector, raising critical questions about financial distress management in major projects. With Queensland delivering an unprecedented infrastructure pipeline amid margin pressures and market uncertainty, are project participants adequately prepared to identify and respond to insolvency warning signs before external administrators arrive?
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Article

Construction Law in Queensland: Complete Guide

Construction law in Queensland establishes a comprehensive framework governing building contracts, payment rights, dispute resolution, and remedies. The legislation creates rapid adjudication mechanisms and strict compliance requirements that can determine the outcome of disputes within days. Understanding how statutory rules interact with contractual terms is essential for protecting rights and avoiding costly procedural mistakes.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Security Of Payment Still Bites: ACL Claims Won’t Stop Enforcement Of Adjudication Determinations

The Victorian Court of Appeal has reinforced that security of payment legislation creates a separate interim right to payment, confirming parties cannot use Australian Consumer Law claims to prevent enforcement of adjudication determinations. This decision examines whether allegations of misleading conduct regarding project costs and timelines can circumvent the 'pay now, argue later' regime established under Victoria's Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Article

Key NSW Security Of Payment Decisions: Monthly Roundup For August 2026

This monthly roundup examines five significant NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions from August 2026 that clarify critical aspects of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, including payment claim validity, procedural fairness in adjudications, and enforcement of judgment debts. The cases address contentious issues such as the 12-month limitation period for payment claims, the relevance of unpaid judgment debts in security for costs applications, and the scope of sec
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich