Business Law Library & Tracker
Commercial Leases & Property
Retail leasing, commercial premises, disclosure, outgoings, rent reviews, renewals and lease exits across Australian states and territories.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerLegislation
Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act 2003 (NT)
Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act 2003 (NT)
Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA)
Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA)
Fair Trading (Code of Practice for Retail Tenancies) Regulations 1998 (Tas)
Fair Trading (Code of Practice for Retail Tenancies) Regulations 1998 (Tas)
Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001 (ACT)
Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001 (ACT)
Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 (SA)
Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 (SA)
Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW)
Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW)
Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)
Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld)
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld)
Tracker
Cases
Kirkalocka Gold SPV Pty Ltd v SCL AUS Limited (No 2)
If your business is in a contested property or insolvency-related dispute, do not treat costs as an afterthought. A Calderbank offer will not automatically lead to indemnity costs just because you later win. The court will look at whether the offer was clear and whether rejection was unreasonable at the time, based on what the other side then knew about the case. This judgment also shows that if receivers or similar officeholders want their litigation costs paid from company assets, they need to point to the actual deed, security or other legal source that gives them that right. And while a pleading defect about costs may not stop a successful party getting ordinary costs, it still creates avoidable risk. Clear pleadings, clear offers and clear evidence about entitlement to payment can materially change the commercial result. Businesses should also remember that a joint offer to multiple parties can fail as a costs tool if it does not clearly explain whether each offeree can accept independently.
Outcome: The court ordered that, subject to one qualification, SCL pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding, to be assessed if not agreed. The qualification was that there be no order as to the costs of the parties' submissions about costs, because each side had some success on those issues. The court refused to order indemnity costs against SCL. It held both that SCL's rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable at the time, given the legal position was not straightforward and the plaintiffs' case had not yet been fully articulated, and that the offer itself was not sufficiently clear because it was made jointly to SCL and Tor without clearly allowing separate acceptance or rejection. The court also refused, on the material before it, to order that the receivers be indemnified out of Kirkalocka's assets, but granted liberty to apply if further evidence and submissions were provided.
SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. v Flexirent Capital Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is in a serious contract dispute, do not treat mitigation, settlement and costs as separate topics. They interact. This judgment shows that reasonable spending to contain damage or pursue recovery may still justify pre-judgment interest, even if later recoveries are taken into account in the damages calculation. It also shows that timing and formality matter with settlement offers. A pre-litigation offer can still be relevant, but if it does not clearly flag costs consequences it may carry less weight. By contrast, a formal offer of compromise can trigger indemnity costs if the final result is more favourable than the offer. Before making or rejecting an offer, compare the likely judgment, interest, costs already spent, future costs, and any weak parts of the case. A headline settlement number on its own can be misleading.
Outcome: The court entered judgment for SMBC against the respondents in the amounts of AUD14,840,518.56 and USD141,862.10 or the AUD equivalent at the time of payment or execution. It ordered the respondents to pay pre-judgment interest of $4,411,171.35 under s 51A(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), including interest on the amount referable to SMBC's funding of the liquidators. On costs, the court rejected Flexirent's argument that its April 2022 offer justified indemnity costs in its favour. Instead, the court ordered the respondents to pay 70% of SMBC's costs up to 11 am on 25 July 2025 on a party-party basis, and 70% from that time on an indemnity basis because SMBC's July 2025 formal offer had been bettered. The court also ordered that costs be determined in a lump sum if not agreed and set a timetable for that process.
Cathro, in the matter of Stormon Industries Pty Ltd (in liq)
If your business trades through a corporate trustee, do not assume insolvency will be administered in the same way as an ordinary company with assets in its own name. This case shows that an insolvency-triggered removal clause in the trust deed can leave the company as only a bare trustee, which may stop liquidators from dealing with trust assets unless the Court steps in. Owners should understand their trust deed before financial distress arises, especially any clause that removes the trustee on liquidation and any mechanism for appointing a replacement trustee. Creditors and advisers should identify early whether the company traded only as trustee, whether trust assets are central to recoveries, and whether a court application may be needed before those assets can be realised and distributed.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Acting Chief Justice Collier appointed the liquidators as joint and several receivers and managers of the property of the D & G Stormon Family Discretionary Trust and any other property held by the company on trust. The Court gave them powers equivalent to receivers’ powers under section 420 of the Corporations Act, with specified exclusions, including power to sell trust property, determine and pay claims, distribute proceeds to creditors in accordance with section 556 priorities, and distribute any surplus to beneficiaries. The Court also made directions under section 90-15 of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act about treatment of the trust assets and liabilities, ordered payment of costs and remuneration from trust property, and allowed creditors or other interested persons to apply to vary the orders.
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Endeavour Energy Network Management Pty Ltd
Do not assume your overtime settings are safe just because they have been used for years without challenge. In this case, the employer’s long-standing daily method survived, but the Court treated the wording as imperfect and worked through the whole agreement to reach that result. Businesses should review how ordinary hours, roster cycles, overtime triggers, weekend rates, public holiday rates and continuous overtime provisions fit together. If employees work under a nine-day fortnight or any averaging arrangement, check whether the agreement clearly says when double time starts and whether overtime is assessed by day, week or some other period. Payroll teams should not rely on labels like ordinary weekly hours in isolation. The safer approach is to test the clause against real roster examples and fix unclear drafting during bargaining rather than after an underpayment claim starts.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the originating application. On the reasoning visible in the judgment, Kennett J held that Endeavour’s construction was the more natural reading of the overtime table when the enterprise agreements were read as a whole. The Court considered that a weekly aggregation approach created structural problems, including making the continuous overtime row redundant and reducing the independent work done by other rows. The Court also noted that the phrase ordinary weekly hours was not straightforward in an agreement where hours were averaged over a two week roster cycle. The result was that Endeavour’s daily or particular-occasion approach to the first two overtime hours prevailed, although the Court said that conclusion could only be stated with modest confidence.
Crawford, in the matter of Pro-Pac Packaging Limited (administrators appointed)
Read this case as a practical administration and group-structure decision. The Court did not rewrite lease law. What it did was support administrators trying to preserve value in a large cross-border group by allowing continued trading and giving them procedural and funding protection. The property angle matters because the administrators' early investigations suggested some dormant entities still sat on leases that had not been formally moved to the active trading company. For business owners, that is the real warning. If your group has shifted operations over time, do not assume the legal documents followed the business. Check leases, guarantees, finance documents, customer contracts and inter-company arrangements entity by entity. For landlords, do not rely only on who occupies the site or pays the rent. Confirm who the legal tenant is and whether any assignment or novation was properly completed. In distress, those details become central.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the relief sought. Beach J extended the period for convening the second meetings of creditors to 20 May 2026 and allowed the meetings to be held during that period or within five business days after it, provided at least five business days' notice was given. The Court ordered that liabilities incurred under the identified funding deeds be treated as debts incurred by the administrators in performing their functions, while limiting the administrators' personal liability where their indemnity from company assets was insufficient. The Court also directed that the administrators were justified and acting reasonably in causing most of the Pro-Pac companies to enter into and perform the funding deeds, restricted payments from the administration account to specified purposes, and extended the time for responding to creditor requests from five to ten business days with portal-based publication allowed.
GGPG Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Golden Eagle Property Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
Business owners should read this as a case about litigation discipline in a complex property development dispute. If your position is that the wrong entity has sued, that a receiver was not validly appointed, or that another party lacks authority to run the case, that issue needs to be stated clearly and consistently from the outset. It is risky to proceed for months or years on the basis that a receiver is acting, then try to convert a related challenge in another proceeding into a late defence just before trial. The judgment also shows that the Court may split related proceedings where one dispute is sufficiently discrete and should not be delayed by a larger corporate fight. In practical terms, businesses should check the authority chain, transaction documents, security documents and pleadings early, especially where land has been acquired through nominee structures, related entities or insolvency appointments.
Outcome: The Court granted leave to amend only to the extent of allowing the respondents to remove parts of their earlier positive factual defence. It refused leave to add the proposed new standing or authority contentions in paragraph 1C and paragraph 41A. McElwaine J held that failing to plead the standing issue explicitly was contrary to sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 16.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), because the point was one that could take the other side by surprise. The Court also set aside earlier orders requiring this proceeding to be heard with QUD 93 of 2022, made a separation order, fixed a fresh timetable, and listed the matter for hearing in Brisbane from 9 February 2026. Costs of the interlocutory applications were reserved.
Kanevsky, in the matter of M.A Services Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)
Read this case as an early administration procedure decision with a strong lease-management angle. The Court did not say leases stop mattering in administration. It recognised the opposite: lease liabilities matter enough that administrators may urgently seek a short postponement of personal liability while they identify premises, vehicles and other leased or financed assets. If your business operates from several sites or uses leased equipment, keep a reliable lease and asset schedule with counterparties, payment obligations, notice details and supporting documents. If you are a landlord or creditor, check court orders, ASIC published notices, emails and any creditor portal carefully. This case shows that notice methods, meeting format and response times can be modified, and those changes can affect how and when you need to act.
Outcome: The Court granted the relief substantially as sought. It ordered that notices could be given by email where an email address was available, otherwise by post, with publication on ASIC's published notices website and a creditor portal as additional safeguards. It permitted meetings to be held by telephone or audiovisual conference only and approved a livestream first meeting with written live chat participation. It extended the response time for certain creditor requests and allowed requested information to be provided through the creditor portal. Importantly, it ordered that the administrators' personal liability under the relevant lease provisions would begin on 16 January 2026, so they were not personally liable for the relevant lease-related liabilities from 23 December 2025 to 16 January 2026 inclusive.
Keybridge Capital Limited v Kirant Regional Media Investments Pty Ltd
If your business is putting money into an acquisition through another entity, document the commercial position precisely at the start. State who is the beneficial owner, who is only the registered holder, whether a trust exists, whether confidentiality is a condition, whether other investors must consent, and what happens if that consent never comes. If the fallback is repayment, record that clearly. Then make sure your board papers, market announcements, financial reports and correspondence stay consistent with that position. This case also shows that a person seeking derivative leave must present as acting for the company, not for a personal or factional agenda. Timing matters. If a claim is only pushed after a board spill or control dispute, the court may view the application with real scepticism.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for derivative leave. Button J held that two mandatory statutory preconditions had not been established. First, the court was not satisfied that Mr Bolton was acting in good faith. Secondly, the court was not satisfied that granting leave would be in the best interests of Keybridge. The judgment indicates that the court's reasoning was influenced by the timing of the application after Mr Bolton's removal from the board and failed appeal, his role as CEO and director during the underlying events, Keybridge's repeated public statements describing the transaction as incomplete and subject to refund, and Keybridge's acceptance of the return of the $5 million in July 2020. The court also ordered Mr Bolton to pay Keybridge's costs of the application.
Mansfield (Trustee), in the matter of Frugtniet v Frugtniet (Stay Applications)
Business owners should read this case as a procedural enforcement decision. The applicants were residential tenants, and the Court was not deciding ordinary leasing rights. It was deciding whether to pause execution of writs of possession for a very short time. The applicants appeared in person, and the Court still required detailed, credible evidence. One had secured a new tenancy starting on a fixed date and had serious cardiac illness. The other had secured a new tenancy within days and was recovering from severe burn injuries. The Court accepted there was some risk to the trustee and some prejudice to creditors, but still granted short stays because the evidence was concrete and the time sought was limited. If your business is in similar trouble, do not rely on assumptions, rumours about appeals, or broad hardship claims. Move quickly, gather documents, and ask only for relief you can realistically honour.
Outcome: The Court granted both stay applications. Execution of the writ for the Lidcombe property was stayed until 9.00 am on 27 October 2025, and execution of the writ for the Rosehill property was stayed until 11.00 am on 10 November 2025. Costs were reserved. Perry J accepted that the trustee and creditors would suffer some prejudice from delay and that there was some risk the occupants might not vacate as promised. Even so, the balance of convenience favoured short stays because each applicant gave credible evidence of genuine hardship and concrete plans to move into alternative accommodation within a limited timeframe. The Court also made clear that it expected both applicants to vacate in line with the dates they had put forward.
Weston (Trustee) v Sanna (No 7)
Read this case as a sale-proceeds and secured-creditor dispute, not just a property fight. The court was prepared to approve a negotiated split of the remaining funds because most active claimants had settled and because objections from Mr and Ms Sanna did not justify stopping the distribution on the material described in the judgment. Earlier findings had already voided certain transfers against the bankruptcy trustee and upheld key debt and security documents relied on by creditors. For businesses, the practical message is straightforward. Keep signed loan agreements, guarantees, security documents and evidence of enforcement steps in order. If your claim depends on property, protect it properly and be ready to prove it. Check whether earlier judgments already determine the debt or the validity of the security, because that can sharply limit what can still be argued later. If a fund is being held after sale, delay can be costly. A commercial settlement may produce a better result than spending the remaining money on a full priority battle.
Outcome: The court allowed the applications. It authorised the relevant liquidators and companies in liquidation, nunc pro tunc, to enter the heads of agreement dated 12 May 2025 and the deed of settlement dated 15 July 2025 under s 477(2A) and s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act. It also authorised the trustee and his solicitors to distribute the remaining sale proceeds in specified amounts: $215,000 to the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Lepa Sanna, $60,000 to Bluescope Steel Ltd, $80,000 to Defined Properties Investments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), $80,000 to ACN 146 329 008 Pty Ltd (in liquidation), and $80,000 to E&B Pastoral Pty Ltd. The remaining $83,385.90 was to be paid to Dentons Australia to be applied first to the applicant's costs and remuneration of obtaining the orders and then, if anything remained, equally among certain creditors. The seventh respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the interim application and the distribution application, and the proceedings were otherwise dismissed.
Wight (liquidator), in the matter of Responsible Entity Services Limited (in liquidation)
If your business is negotiating with a secured creditor in liquidation, get clear early on four things. First, is the creditor actually bound by the restructuring document, or will a separate deed, consent or deed poll be needed? Second, what exactly is being released: land mortgage, shares, PPSR security, plant, equipment, or all of them? Third, is the officeholder being asked to compromise the debt itself, release security only, or do both at once? Fourth, will the officeholder seek court directions or approval before signing? In this case, the deal only worked because the DOCA, the deed poll and the court orders were designed to fit together. SMEs should treat that as a drafting and timing lesson. Do not leave security releases, payment triggers or approval steps to the end of the transaction.
Outcome: Beach J made the orders sought by the liquidators. Under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), the Court held they were justified and acting reasonably in receiving $5,975,000 plus GST under the PPM DOCA, executing and performing the deed poll, and taking steps connected with releasing the identified security interests. Those interests were the mortgage over the Helidon property and the security interest over all issued shares in BRS. The Court also approved the liquidators receiving the secured creditor amount in exchange for releasing those security interests under s 477(2A), to the extent necessary. The Court further made a confidentiality order over investor details, ordered the liquidators' costs to be costs in the liquidation, and granted liberty to apply.
Woori International Pty Ltd, in the matter of TJM Holdings Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
If your company is served with a statutory demand or winding up application, separate the issues early. First, decide whether the debt itself is disputed and what process exists to challenge it. Second, if the company is solvent, be ready to prove that with proper evidence at once. Third, be realistic about timing. A prompt application to review or set aside a winding up order may be treated very differently from one brought many months later after the liquidation has effectively run its course. This case also shows that reputational concerns, while real, may not be enough to justify reopening a winding up if there is no meaningful legal or commercial difference between setting the order aside and simply terminating the liquidation. In lease disputes, registered tribunal debts can become insolvency problems unless dealt with quickly.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application with costs. Owens J refused leave under section 198G(3), holding that the proposed review case was very weak once the need for a lengthy extension of time was taken into account. Although the company appeared to have been solvent, the court found there was no substantial practical advantage in setting aside the winding up order because the liquidation had all but concluded, a property had been sold, the debt had been paid and the liquidators were close to seeking termination of the winding up under section 482. The court also rejected the alternative rule 39.05 arguments. A winding up order was not interlocutory, and the alleged fraud case failed because it had not been clearly articulated or properly supported with the necessary material.
Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Read this case as a process and risk-management decision. It does not tell you that the former director or holding company would have lost at trial. It tells you that the Court was prepared to approve a commercial compromise reached by liquidators where insolvency issues were likely to be contestable and where the Court was satisfied the settlement was reasonable. If your business is under financial pressure, keep strong records of cash flow, liabilities as they fall due, available funding, and any advice received about solvency. If you are dealing with a liquidator, do not assume a settlement can simply be signed and implemented without checking authority. Ask early whether court, creditor or committee approval is needed, whether a protective direction should be sought, and whether any confidential material will need to be protected by court order.
Outcome: Justice Beach approved the settlement. The Court approved the liquidators' entry into the terms of settlement dated 15 July 2025 under section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act, nunc pro tunc, and directed under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that the liquidators were justified in entering into, causing the companies to enter into, and giving effect to the settlement. The litigation representative's entry into the settlement was also approved under rules 9.70 and 9.71 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The Court made confidentiality orders over specified affidavit material, concluded the examination of Mrs Scott under the summons, dismissed the proceeding otherwise, and ordered that the applicants' costs be costs in the liquidations. The judge said he was generally satisfied that the settlement was commercial and a reasonable compromise of the relevant claims.