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

Blog

Clawback of leasing incentives

Back in 2014, QBM Lawyers successfully applied to dismiss proceedings claiming the clawback (repayment) of over $1M in leasing incentives which were claimed to be repayable because of the termination of the lease.  This was in the matter of GWC Property Group Pty Ltd v Higginson [2014] QSC 264 (“the GWC Decision”).  Common kinds of lease incentives are rental discounts, or fitout contributions. The GWC Decision was and remains significant because clawback provisions in incentive deeds (or in the lease itself) are frequently used by landlords to attempt to recover incentives paid, and the decision made it clear that at least in some circumstances – and depending upon the effect of the clawback provision – the obligation would be void and unenforceable as what is known in legal terms to be a “penalty”. The GWC Decision has been referred to in a number of subsequent court decisions in courts and Tribunals in Queensland and other states.  In 2023, the Queensland Supreme Court in the matter of BMG SP Pty Ltd v YFG Strathton Pty Ltd  [2023] QSC 52 held that the obligation to repay a proportion of the fitout contribution was unenforceable as penalties, with the result that the Plaintiff’s claim in those proceedings of $993,607.29 were not recoverable.  The decision relied substantially upon the reasoning of Her Honour Justice Dalton in the GWC Decision. The fact that an obligation is unenforceable because it is a penalty does not necessarily mean however that the lessor is left without any remedy at all.  Even if a lease incentive could not be claimed back because it would be a penalty, the lessor in many cases can still sue the lessee and guarantors for damages for the breach or termination of the lease if that is the event that gave rise to the obligation to pay the incentive.  In the GWC proceedings, the lessor was left with no remedy at all because the lease did not have guarantors (whereas the incentive deed did) and the tenant was in liquidation.  Those circumstances however were usual.  In most cases, the inability to claim the clawback of lease incentives if they were a penalty would still leave the landlord with remedies against the tenant and any guarantors for its losses consequent upon the breach of the lease.  For advice in relation to leasing and lease disputes, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au and Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com

Seller forced to pay $1,650,000 commission on failed sale

In an earlier news article, we discussed the risks of sellers blindly signing agent’s appointments which often incorporate provisions requiring the seller to pay commission on sales which have not settled.  The REIQ standard terms for agent’s appointments contain that quite hazardous obligation, together with other provisions which might excite the interest of the seller’s lawyer if the seller thought to take advice before signing the Form 6. A particularly vivid demonstration on this occurred in the matter of Trappando Pty Ltd v Sunshine Group Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 87 in which the seller was found liable to pay their agent’s commission in the sum of $1,650,000 for a sale: Briefly, the circumstances were that the agent was appointed by the Defendant by a Form 6 appointment, which relevantly provided that the commission would be (where there was a sale price over $6,300,001 plus GST), the amount of the sale price over $6M plus GST.  The appointment went on to include the usual REIQ standard terms which provide that commission is payable: The agent introduced a buyer at a contract price of $7,500,000.  Under the terms of that contract, a deposit of $750,000 was paid. The seller terminated the contract, claiming to be entitled to the deposit of $750,000.  The agent claimed to be entitled to commission being $1,650,000. The obvious outcome is that the agent was claiming commission some $900,000 in excess of the deposit.  Ignoring for the time being the question of whether or not the seller could sue the buyer for that $900,000 as damages for breach of contract (there being some question in our mind about that given that the terms of the agent’s appointment were quite unusual), the buyer was put into external management and remained so, with at least some likelihood that there would be difficulties in any attempt to recover against it, and the result that the seller could well be $900,000 out of pocket for sale that did not proceed. The seller appealed the decision, but was unsuccessful yet again, failing to disturb the order that it paid the entirety of the commission.  This decision reflects the risks of signing Form 6 appointments to act which allow the agent to be paid commission in circumstances other than the settlement of the contract.  It also demonstrates the risks of a significant success fee being built into the agent’s commission, in those circumstances. For advice in relation to agent appointments, please contact our property lawyers Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au and Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com

Queensland Enduring Powers of Attorney

The usefulness of Enduring Powers of Attorney cannot be underestimated, and should be considered as part of any estate or business planning exercise. But what is an enduring power of attorney, how are they made, and should you agree to be an attorney?  This article sets out the basic framework for the instrument.  In a future article we will give examples of where things can go wrong. What is an Enduring Power of Attorney? An Enduring Power of Attorney is a document whereby an adult (called “the principal”) authorises one or more people (“eligible attorneys”) to do things in relation to certain financial or personal matters for them, those being things that the principal could do by an attorney if they had capacity when the power is exercised.  In Queensland, Enduring Powers of Attorney are created under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (“The Act”).  Unlike a General Power of Attorney, an Enduring Power of Attorney continues to be effective if the principal suffers from impaired capacity for the matter (eg is temporarily or permanently unable to make the decision for themselves).  Also the powers are to some extent identified as “financial matters” and “personal matters”, with different people quite often being appointed for the respective categories. Who can be the attorney? To qualify as an eligible attorney, by section 29 of the Act, the attorney must be a person who: The Public Trustee or a trustee company under the Trustee Companies Act 1968 may be appointed, and for personal matters, the public guardian may be appointed. The power of attorney can be in respect of financial matters (ie relating to the principal’s financial or property matters) and for personal matters which is defined as being a matter – other than a special personal matter or a special health matter – relating to the principal’s care including their healthcare or welfare.  Schedule 2 to the Act sets out examples of what a personal matter might include.  A special personal matter (ie something that cannot be done by an attorney) is a matter that is listed in section 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act, including matters such as making or revoking a will, making or revoking a power of attorney, voting, and a number of other matters of personal significance.  Special health matters (ie which an attorney cannot agree to for the principal). Capacity to make an Enduring Power of Attorney By section 41, a principal has the capacity to make an Enduring Power of Attorney only if they are capable of making it freely and voluntarily, and understand the nature and effect of the power of attorney, including understanding that: This brings about important issues concerning powers.  Sometimes principals make enduring powers of attorney to commence immediately, for various reasons.  This means that the power of attorney exists while the principal remains able to do the things for themselves.  If this occurs however, the attorney should not act inconsistently with the wishes of the principal while they have capacity.  But then there can be questions as to whether the principal has lost capacity, and if that capacity was lost, then there can be questions about whether or not the principal regained capacity.  If the attorney is only to commence when the principal loses capacity, then in most cases, the power will cease if and when the principal regains capacity.  Attorneys should be careful to ensure that there is evidence that the power has commenced, as they will be acting without authority if the attorney only commences when the principal loses capacity, and evidence demonstrates that capacity was not lost. Revoking or ending an Enduring Power of Attorney The power of attorney can be revoked by the principal at any time if the principal has the necessary capacity to make a new power of attorney for the particular power. Revocation of an Enduring Power of Attorney must be in the approved form, except to the extent that the power of attorney gives power for a health matter, which need not be an approved form. Revocation is also effected by: When an attorney’s power ends, if the attorney was a joint attorney for the matter, then the remaining attorney or attorneys may continue to exercise the power. Form of Power of Attorney There are prescribed forms for the power of attorney in Queensland, however documents validly prepared and executed in another state will be effective to the extent that it gives powers that could be validly given under the Act. To comply with formal requirements for a Queensland Enduring Power of Attorney, the power of attorney must be: The current approved form of Enduring Power of Attorney is a lengthy document which identifies a number of options for the principal to stipulate how the power is to be exercised, including their wishes, and whether third parties are to be consulted. The form of Enduring Power of Attorney and the guide to it can be found online through the Queensland Government website. Obligations of attorneys Becoming an attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney means taking on significant obligations and it is not without risk. First, the attorney must exercise the power honestly and with reasonable diligence to protect the principal’s interests, and that has the result that an attorney can be liable to compensate the principal if they fail to do so.  Second, the attorney must exercise the powers subject to the terms of the document.  Third, the attorney must sign documents noting that it does so as attorney for the principal.  Fourth, an attorney who knows that their power has been revoked, must not exercise or purport to exercise the power.  Fifth, the attorney must avoid entering into a transaction by which there is or might be or results in a conflict between their own interests or the interests of a close associate or relation or another duty, with the interests of the principal.  This is subject to the power of the principal (if they have capacity) or the

landlord

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