Legislative Wrap-Up 2022: Grant of option now dutiableOn 19 May 2022, the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) was amended by the State Revenue and Fines Legislation Amendments (Miscellaneous) Act 2022 (NSW) (the Act). Upon its royal assent, a new head of duty...
Landlords and Tenants: At what stage do lease documents become binding?
Landlords and Tenants: At what stage do lease documents become binding?
Published: 29 November 2021
Written by: Duane Keighran and Sara Ibrahim
The case of Thorn Australia Pty Ltd v Centuria Property Funds Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1217 considers whether provisions of a signed lease and incentive deed which were signed by the tenant and delivered to the landlord could amount to the tenant (Thorn) being immediately bound by the deeds. Due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, the landlord (Centuria) was unable to complete execution of the documents in a timely manner after the tenant had delivered its signed copies. It was during this period of inaction by the landlord that Thorn withdrew from the transaction. Thorn contended that it did not intend to be immediately bound on delivery of the signed deeds.
How did this issue arise?
In April 2021, both parties had entered into a heads of agreement which was prepared by Centuria (as landlord). Within the heads of the agreement, the following relevant provisions were set out:
“The information contained in this proposal is not a binding lease between the prospective Lessee and the Lessor and is subject to final Lessor and Lessee board approval.
The Lessee and the Lessor reserve the right to withdraw from and terminate negotiations at any time prior to execution of formal Lease documents by both the Lessee and the Lessor. The Lessor’s rights in respect of the deposit and legal costs remain irrespective of approval.”
In early May the draft transaction documents (comprising an incentive deed and a lease) were sent to Thorn’s lawyers. Following negotiations between the parties, Thorn signed the incentive deed and lease. The next day, Thorn’s lawyers again sent two signed copies of the lease and one signed copy of the incentive deed. Attached with the signed documents was a cover letter which referred to “formalising the arrangements”. Under this agreement, Thorn proposed arrangements which would include Centuria sending Thorn a scanned copy of the documents signed by Centura as landlord, and if the tenant was satisfied at that point, they would authorise Centuria to exchange and date the incentive deed and date the lease.
Centuria did not agree to these conditions. Following subsequent discussion, the parties agreed that Centuria would arrange execution of both counterparts and then would arrange registration of the lease, and upon completion, documents would be sent to Thorn. This meant there would be no exchange of counterparts.
As requested by Centuria, Thorn provided another signed incentive deed, attached with the required bank guarantee provided as security for Thorn’s obligations under the lease and incentive deed. However, Centuria could not promptly proceed with its execution due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Consequently, Thorn decided to withdraw.
Centuria argued against Thorn’s withdrawal, stating they were bound by the terms of the lease and incentive deed as signed and delivered by Thorn.
What did the court decide?
The critical question for the Court to decide was to determine was whether the tenant had displayed an intention to be bound immediately on execution and delivery of the deeds.
Presiding Judge, Darke J determined Thorn did not intend to be immediately bound on delivery of the deeds. Darke reached this conclusion for various reasons. Most importantly, he noted:
Under the heads of agreement, both parties had a specific right to leave the negotiations at any time until any formal documents had been signed.
An intention for Thorn to be immediately bound was not evidenced by simply signing the deeds and sending them electronically prior to the submission of the original signed documents.
When Thorn had submitted the original documents with only one signed copy of the incentive deed it was believed that Thorn was intending that the exchange of the incentive deed would be the first act giving rise to legal rights and obligations. Thorn did not intend to become bound by the Lease (even conditionally) before being bound by the Incentive Deed. In addition, the submission of a second incentive deed was merely procedural and did not manifest this intention to be bound.
This case follows a similar judgement to the case of Pittmore Pty Ltd v Chan [2020] NSWCA 344, and also reconsiders principles found in Realm Resources v Aurora Place Investments [2019] NSSWC 379. Where an intention to be bound exists, a party will be bound by the deeds on delivery. This will be the case regardless of whether a deed is delivered unconditionally or delivered to be held in escrow.
Key point to note
Ultimately, physical delivery of signed deeds does not alone evidence an intention to be immediately bound. The words, conduct and facts surrounding the execution are required to be examined to ascertain a party’s intention.
Other Articles of Interest
Feel free to browse our other news items. Of course, if you’d like us to expand upon any points raised, please reach out to us.
Going Digital – Queensland’s new e-Conveyancing MandateQueensland will make e-Conveyancing mandatory for certain transactions with the commencement of the Land Title Regulation 2022 (Qld) from 20 February 2023 (the Regulation). The Regulation will...
Hotel Investment and Development State of Play Survey Australia 2022Hospitality advisory group Minett Prime Square and law firm Keighran Legal + Advisory have partnered to benchmark the state of play within the hotel investment and development...
Landlords and Tenants: At what stage do lease documents become binding?Published: 29 November 2021 Written by: Duane Keighran and Sara Ibrahim The case of Thorn Australia Pty Ltd v Centuria Property Funds Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1217 considers whether...
Deal Announcement: The delivery and handover of social and affordable housing rental dwellingsDeveloped by Traders In Purple, in partnership with Housing Trust, the project delivered much needed social and affordable housing rental units to the...
Deal Announcement: AVARI Capital Partners successful purchase of 10 Hobart Place, Canberra.A prominent core CBD building with over 4,500m of NLA, the building provides a significant opportunity for value add, whilst returning an impressive yield in...
Deal Announcement: Brisbane’s first Mövenpick HotelDeveloped by Keylin as part of the prestigious ORIA Spring Hill development, the Hotel is due to open in 2024. Our Hotels team of Duane Keighran, Georgia Carter and Sara Ibrahim were pleased to...
Snapshot: NSW Government tweaks ‘Impacted Lessee’ statusPublished: 30 September 2021 Written by: Duane Keighran and Sara Ibrahim The new amendments Recent amendments to the Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Amendment Regulation...
Say goodbye to paper titles – Embracing a digital land registry in NSWPublished: 30 September 2021 Written by: John Momitsas and Sara Ibrahim The pursuit to move from traditional paper conveyancing processes, towards a completely digital...
Update & Snapshot: Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme Regulations 2021 (VIC)Published: 27 August 2021 Written by: John Momitsas and Sarah Ibrahim A very much anticipated wait (since our Article earlier this month) has finally come to an...
Back to News + Articles