PERPETUAL TRUSTEE CO LIMITED v CROOKS MICHELL PEACOCK STEWART PTY LTD [1992] NSWCA 185

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE CO LIMITED v CROOKS MICHELL PEACOCK STEWART PTY LTD [1992] NSWCA 185

By majority (Priestley JA, Clarke JA concurring; Kirby P dissenting): On its proper construction, the reference to 'rental value of comparable premises' in the rent review clause did not require the valuer to disregard concessions and abatement for such premises: only the subject premises were to be valued without reduction for concessions or rent abatement. Thus, the majority held that the clause permitted the rental value of comparable premises to be determined with regard to concessions and abatement, consistent with general valuation principles and the language of the lease.

Parties
Appellant/lessor: Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd; 1st Respondent/lessee: Crooks Michell Peacock Stewart Pty Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Unnamed Umpire/Valuer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority). Declarations and orders to be brought in to reflect the Court's reasoning. Kirby P dissented and would have allowed the appeal.
Legal Topics
Leases, Rent Review Clauses, Contract Interpretation, Conveyancing
Property Law Commercial Law Leases Rent Review Clauses Contract Interpretation Conveyancing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd

Appellant/lessor

Crooks Michell Peacock Stewart Pty Ltd

1st Respondent/lessee

Unnamed Umpire/Valuer

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of a rent review clause in a commercial lease regarding whether concessions and rent abatements are to be taken into account in the rental value of comparable premises

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Priestley JA, Clarke JA concurring; Kirby P dissenting): On its proper construction, the reference to 'rental value of comparable premises' in the rent review clause did not require the valuer to disregard concessions and abatement for such premises: only the subject premises were to be valued without reduction for concessions or rent abatement. Thus, the majority held that the clause permitted the rental value of comparable premises to be determined with regard to concessions and abatement, consistent with general valuation principles and the language of the lease.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority). Declarations and orders to be brought in to reflect the Court's reasoning. Kirby P dissented and would have allowed the appeal.