Australia: NSW Retail Leasing Update – January 2007

Last Updated: 12 January 2007

New Leading Authority In Retail Lease Disputes

On November 13 2006, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down its decision in the matter of Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Limited [2006] NSWADT 323.

The Armstrong Jones decision is likely to become a leading authority in retail lease disputes which involve allegations against a landlord of:

  • pre-lease misrepresentations
  • unconscionable conduct, and
  • failing to mitigate.

The Facts

Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd (the Landlord) granted Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Ltd (the Tenant) a five-year lease of a shop in a newly-established 'bulky goods' style retail shopping centre.

The Tenant, a retailer of Balinese style furniture, did not meet turnover expectations and fell into arrears. The Landlord terminated the lease by re-entering the premises and changing the locks. The shop had not been re-let by the time the claim was heard.

The Landlord commenced action in the Tribunal claiming the arrears of rent and future loss (damages). The Tenant filed a defence asserting that the Landlord had failed to mitigate its loss and a counterclaim alleging pre-lease misrepresentations, misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.

Pre-Lease Misrepresentations: Landlords Beware - 'It Only Takes One'

Armstrong Jones focused on the false and misleading pre-lease misrepresentations by the Landlord's agent to the Tenant, which ultimately induced the Tenant into entering into the lease.

Of the 13 or so oral and written misrepresentations asserted against the Landlord, the Tribunal only sustained one. Despite the high attrition rate, the Tribunal still determined that the effect of the misrepresentation was to:

  • release the Tenant from liability to pay unpaid rent, and
  • repay money drawn down on the bank guarantee.

The Tenant asserted both oral and written misrepresentations, which collectively 'glowingly' described the centre as a place for the Tenant to establish a business along with other high quality tenants.

Oral Misrepresentations

The Tenant alleged nine instances of oral pre-lease misrepresentations by the leasing agent.

The Tribunal approached each of the alleged oral representations individually by asking:

  1. what the leasing agent actually said
  2. whether it was false or misleading
  3. whether he knew, or ought to have known, that it was false or misleading, and
  4. whether the Tenant relied upon the representation.

Upon examining each oral representation separately and applying the above test, the Tribunal found that eight of the nine categories were not false and/or misleading either because:

  • there was no specific representation made by the agent on the evidence available to the Tribunal, or
  • although a representation was made by the agent, there was no evidence to suggest that the agent knew the representation to be false or suspected that it was false at the time he made it, or
  • although a representation was made by the agent, it was not a 'material' misrepresentation and thus not relied upon by the Tenant.

The only oral representation found by the Tribunal to have been made and be false and/or misleading at the time it was made was that 'Harvey Norman was a prospective tenant' in the centre (Harvey Norman representations).

Written Misrepresentations

The Tenant also asserted that it relied on misrepresentations contained in the disclosure statement and in the brochure (documents) promoting the centre when entering into the lease.

The allegations were that the brochure represented that:

  • the managers of the centre were experts who could be trusted
  • the huge population and household growth on the doorstep of the centre
  • the Tenant's business would flourish, and
  • there was significant signage to the centre to maximise exposure to attract patrons.

The Tribunal applied the same criteria to the written representations as it did the oral instances, examining each alleged misrepresentation individually and in detail.

It found that, although the Tenant relied on the material contained in the documents:

  • the first and fourth alleged misrepresentations were not false to the knowledge of its maker
  • the second was not false
  • the material relied upon to establish the third, does not support the allegation it was in fact made

and therefore, the Tenant was not entitled to compensation under section 10 of the Retail Leases Act (the Act).

The Upshot

The Tribunal awarded damages to the Tenant as the Harvey Norman representations were found to be instrumental in inducing the Tenant into the lease so much so that had the representation not been made, the Tenant would not have entered into the lease.

Contemporaneous Written Records

In determining the Harvey Norman representations, the Tribunal also placed great weight on the comprehensive (but not always coherent) notes taken by the Tenant either during, or shortly after the many conversations with the Landlord's agent. The leasing agent did not take any notes of conversations with the Tenant's representative (despite his 10 years of experience).

This put the Landlord at a distinct forensic disadvantage. Wherever the Tenant's notes coherently contradicted the agent's oral testimony, the Tenant's position, when supported by the Tenant's notes, was preferred. Indeed, the notes were so significant, particularly in respect of the Harvey Norman representations, that it is fair to say the Tenant prevailed in this litigation due to the serious shortcomings in the leasing agent's record keeping practices.

The Disclosure Statement

Lessees' disclosure statements are an important weapon for defending allegations of pre-lease misrepresentations.

Section 10(2A) of the Act states that:

The making of a representation by a prospective lessee in a lessee’s disclosure statement given to a prospective lessor under a retail shop lease that the prospective lessee has sought independent advice, or as to statements or representations relied on by the prospective lessee in entering the lease, is considered to be the making of a representation by a lessee to the lessor.

The disclosure statement, which was in the prescribed form, provided that apart from any statements or representation set out in the statement, no other promises, representations, warranties or undertakings (other than those in the lease) had been made by the Lessor… in respect of the premises or the business to be carried out on the premises (Waiver).

The Landlord in Armstrong Jones argued that because of this term (and because the Tenant had taken legal advice), the Tenant should have specified any statements or representations relied upon in the disclosure statement and was 'estopped' from relying on any of the alleged misrepresentations as grounds for relief.

The Tribunal did not entirely agree with this approach but it did reject recent authority that attempted to nullify this defence (Gizah Pty Limited v AXA Trustees Ltd [2002] NSWADT 116). Instead, it narrowly construed the term. It found that it only relates to representations in respect of the premises or the business to be carried out on the premises. The Harvey Norman representations fell outside the scope of the waiver as they did not relate to the 'premises' or the business, but related to premises nearby.

The good news for landlords is that the failure by a lessee to include a representation in its disclosure statement can in fact provide an answer for the landlord to misrepresentation claims provided the representation is in respect of the premises or the business to be carried out on the premises.

What Does It All Mean?

  • ultimately, it is not a matter of whether the representation was made. What is important is that it was false at the time it was made and that the tenant in fact relied upon it to the extent that it was instrumental in inducing the tenant to enter into the lease
  • failure to take comprehensive and coherent notes of lease negotiations places owners at a huge disadvantage in disputes. Always take notes of all conversations with prospective tenants
  • leasing agents need to be counselled and monitored to ensure that record keeping occurs and that it is contemporaneous and coherent. The balance of power between owners and their retail tenants means a leasing agent who does not meet this standard is a liability, no matter how persuasive or effective he/she is in landing deals
  • disclosure statements are to the benefit of landlords and tenants and not just a nuisance. The disclosure statement can provide a good defence to allegations concerning misrepresentations about the premises or the business to be carried out in it.

Was It Unconscionable, Or Merely Unjust Or Unfair?

Allegations of unconscionable conduct are commonplace in retail lease disputes. They have, to date, represented the great unknown that has given rise to considerable uncertainty for landlords. The decision in Armstrong Jones provides a useful examination of the standard of conduct required to cross the 'unconscionable' threshold and, in the process, also provides certainty and some welcome relief for landlords.

Unconscionable Conduct Claims

In Armstrong Jones, the Tenant, cited the following:

  • pressure by the Landlord to sign the Tenant's disclosure statement
  • failure to advise about delays to the opening of the shopping centre that would impact on the lease commencement date
  • failure to advise of unforseen risks associated with taking on a new tenancy in the shopping centre's development
  • failure to allow the Tenant to remedy alleged breaches of the lease (ie. not provide notice of intention to re-enter)
  • failure to warn the Tenant that it would be locked out of the premises, and
  • a refusal by the Landlord to negotiate in good faith.

The Tribunal's Decision

Despite the Landlord re-entering the premises without notice, the Tribunal found that a significant period of time was in fact made available for the Tenant to remedy its breaches and that there was an express right, under the lease, for the Landlord to terminate for default in payment of rent that subsisted for 14 days or more (without requiring notice).

The Tribunal agreed that the Tenant had been targeted as a 'problem tenant' and that other tenants who were in default of payment of rent did not attract the same degree of attention but there was no evidence to suggest that this conduct was anything more than 'unfair'. Similarly, the Tribunal found that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the allegation that the Landlord refused to negotiate in good faith.

The Tribunal found 'significant shortcomings' by the Landlord to ensure that the Tenant has adequate financial capacity to take on its tenancy and the Landlord's conduct was described by the Tribunal as 'negligent and/or incompetent and/or in breach of standards of sound management practice'. However, the Tribunal decided that it could not be said that the Lessor's (and its agent's) conduct was of the standard required of unconscionable conduct, that is 'highly unethical' or involving a 'high degree of moral obloquy'.

The only claim that the Tribunal upheld as unconscionable conduct stemmed from the misrepresentation made by the Lessor's agent regarding Harvey Norman (see Pre-lease misrepresentations - Landlords beware - it only takes one).

Unfair Conduct

When a tenant falls into arrears, the Armstrong Jones decision confirms that landlords may take a strict approach to enforcing their rights under a lease against any tenant in default. 'Unfair' treatment alone falls short of unconscionable conduct. For a landlord to be 'unconscionable', conduct must go beyond poor professionalism or management failures. It requires 'highly unethical' behaviour involving a 'high degree of moral obloquy'. (Yes, we have looked up 'obloquy' and it means abuse or detraction).

Unconscionable Conduct

Retail leases are highly unlikely to set out a standard for shopping centre management. It is not however the case that the tenant will have no remedy in instances of serious or intentional neglect or recklessness. In Armstrong Jones, the Tribunal took the opportunity to put shopping centre owners and managing agents on notice of a remedy for seriously poor centre management. The Judgment stated that if the Landlord:

failed to establish or maintain the centre as a moderately attractive place to visit, or to arrange any significant publicity for it, with the entirely foreseeable result that some or all of the tenants failed to achieve sufficient sales to pay their rent and thereby became vulnerable to eviction, the Tribunal might well hold that this amounted to unconscionable conduct...

Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Ltd [2006] NSWADT 323 at 335.

In the absence of contractual rights, unconscionable conduct may provide a minimum standard for shopping centre management.

What We Have Here, Is A 'Failure To Mitigate'

The Armstrong Jones decision includes a useful summary of much of the law on mitigation in a Retail Lease context and an example of its application. This is discussed below.

The duty to mitigate provides that:

a plaintiff who acts unreasonably in failing to minimise his loss from the defendant’s breach of contract will have his damages reduced to the extent to which, had he acted reasonably, his loss would have been less.

Karaconinakis v Big Country Development Pty Limited [2000] NSWSCCA 313 per Giles JA.

The Landlord's Claim

The Landlord claimed approximately $360,000.00, comprising:

Arrears claim

arrears of rent, outgoings and promotional levy outstanding at the date the lease was terminated.

Damages claim

(i) rent, outgoings and promotional levy due under the lease from the date of termination up to the hearing, and

(ii) rent, outgoings and promotional levy due under the lease from the date of the hearing to the expiry date of the lease discounted by a figure of $80,000.00 per annum being the annual rent that the Landlord estimated it would receive for the premises in that period.

Re-letting costs

the leasing incentive and a leasing fee in respect of any new lease.


interest on arrears up to the hearing date at 9%.


Bank Guarantee

a deduction of the amount of the bank guarantee drawn upon by the Landlord.

The Landlord's Actions

The Landlord relied on actions taken by its managing agent to find a replacement tenant. The managing agent had:

  • requested expressions of interest from 29 'bulky goods' retailers selected from his list of retailers who might be appropriate for the premises
  • placed a single-page advertisement in a publication advertising 'bulky goods', and
  • sent letters of offer to four prospective tenants and negotiated with an unspecified number of other prospective tenants.

The Tenant's Reply

The Tenant made the following submissions in reply:

  • the advertisement did not make special mention of the premises. Rather, it was an advertisement of three 'bulky goods' centres, one of which happened to be the centre in question
  • each letter of offer (with one exception) was sent more than six months after the Landlord had terminated the lease
  • the Landlord did not erect a 'For Lease' sign outside the shop. Instead, the landlord erected a sign outside the shop stating a 'new exciting retailer' was 'coming soon'. This sign was untruthful and had the effect of discouraging enquires, and
  • very little had been done to try to re-let the premises in the period immediately following the termination.

The Outcome

The Landlord relied upon Giles JA's judgment in Karaconinakis v Big Country Development Pty Limited [2000] NSWSCCA 313:

A plaintiff who acts unreasonably in failing to minimise his loss from the defendant’s breach of contract will have his damages reduced to the extent to which, had he acted reasonably, his loss would have been less. This is often misleadingly referred to as a duty to mitigate, although the plaintiff is not under a positive duty. The plaintiff does not have to show that he has fulfilled his so called duty, and the onus is on the defendant to show that he has not and to the extent to which he has not.

The Tribunal accepted that a tenant has to prove a landlord has failed to mitigate and that the standard of a landlord's duty to mitigate is 'not high'. Nevertheless, it found that the Landlord had not adequately mitigated its loss, as:

  • the advertisement made no specific reference to the premises
  • the vacancy was not advertised on the '' website, and
  • the sign outside the premises suggested that no tenant was required.

Financial Implications

The Tribunal calculated the effect of the Landlord's failure to adequately mitigate upon the Landlord's damages claim. This was done by applying the rule that a landlord's damages claim (being principally for lost rent) should be reduced by the:

'realistic rental that the landlord would have received had he mitigated his loss'.
Austin J, [29], Young v Lamb (2) [2001] NSW SC 1014.

The Tribunal accepted the Landlord's estimate of the rent achievable for the premises ($80,000.00 per annum) and calculated that the realistic rent the Landlord would have received, had it mitigated its loss, was:

  • nil for two months from the date of termination (being time in which to find a new tenant), and
  • thereafter rent in the same amount as the Landlord's estimate (ie. $80,000.00 per annum).

Failure to mitigate the Landlord's loss resulted in a reduction of the Landlord's damages claim of approximately $60,000.00.

Mitigation 'Tips And Traps'

  • commence efforts to re-let the vacant premises immediately upon termination
  • advertisements of the retail centre as a whole will not help; the particular vacancy should be nominated
  • advertise the vacancy online and give particular consideration to advertising the vacancy on website or other prominent website(s) advertising commercial leases and property in Australia, and
  • a 'For Lease' sign is preferable to a sign that a 'new exciting retailer' is 'coming soon'. The latter may be a 'face saver' but it runs counter to the duty to mitigate. If a 'For Lease' sign is not acceptable, no sign at all may be the preferable option.


Rob Riddell

t (02) 9931 4940



Matthew Raven

t (07) 3231 1641


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.