Hanna v Saracoglu [2005] NSWADT 227

Hanna v Saracoglu [2005] NSWADT 227

The option was validly exercised by the applicants' letter of 25 May 2004, creating only the further term under the existing lease from 9 November 2004 to 7 November 2007. The later 4 February 2005 proposal was not accepted before the applicants' solicitor made a counter-offer, so no new 3 plus 3 lease arose. The signed lease included the handwritten addition of a single car space, so the premises included the rear garage. Under the clear words of the lease, the lessees were not liable for water charges until a separate water meter was installed at the lessors' cost. The rent remained $2,206.67 per month from 8 November 2004 pending completion of the market valuation process, because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Declaration of Rights, Obligations and Liabilities Under a Lease; Claim for the Doing of Work or Provision of Services / Principal Matter
Outcome
Application determined by orders declaring the option validly exercised, confirming rent and premises, denying water rates liability until separate metering, and directing roof repair and bond matters, with further directions listed for orders 5 and 6 only.
Legal Topics
['exercise of Lease Option' 'market Rent Review' 'lease Premises Including Garage' 'outgoings and Water Rates' 'roof Repairs' 'security Bond']
['retail Leases' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['exercise of Lease Option' 'market Rent Review' 'lease Premises Including Garage' 'outgoings and Water Rates' 'roof Repairs' 'security Bond']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Declaration of Rights, Obligations and Liabilities Under a Lease; Claim for the Doing of Work or Provision of Services / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants validly exercised the option under the lease and obtained a further term ending 7 November 2007' 'Whether later negotiations created a new 3 plus 3 lease commencing in February 2005' 'Whether the leased premises included the garage at the rear of the shop' 'Whether the lessees were liable for water rates before installation of a separate water meter' 'Whether further roof repairs were required' "Whether the lessors were required to establish that the bond was held in an interest bearing deposit on the lessees' behalf" 'What rent applied pending completion of the market valuation process']

Ratio Decidendi

The option was validly exercised by the applicants' letter of 25 May 2004, creating only the further term under the existing lease from 9 November 2004 to 7 November 2007. The later 4 February 2005 proposal was not accepted before the applicants' solicitor made a counter-offer, so no new 3 plus 3 lease arose. The signed lease included the handwritten addition of a single car space, so the premises included the rear garage. Under the clear words of the lease, the lessees were not liable for water charges until a separate water meter was installed at the lessors' cost. The rent remained $2,206.67 per month from 8 November 2004 pending completion of the market valuation process, because the...

Court Disposition

Application determined by orders declaring the option validly exercised, confirming rent and premises, denying water rates liability until separate metering, and directing roof repair and bond matters, with further directions listed for orders 5 and 6 only.

Orders

  • ['Option validly exercised, term ends 7 November 2007.' 'Rent applicable from 8 November 2004 is $2,206.67 per month (plus GST if lessor has ABN) until market valuation process is completed, note that neither party has yet nominated a Valuer in accordance with clause 9 (4) (e) of Lease.' 'Premises include garage at...