PARTIES/LEGAL REPRESENTATION/ TYPE OF DISPUTE The inquiry was with regard to the selling price of…
Queensland Tribunal matter
PARTIES/LEGAL REPRESENTATION/ TYPE OF DISPUTE
Major Queensland Government Superannuation fund and clothing outlet. Parties legally represented for quiet use dispute
INSTRUCTION: Experts report for calculating loss; experts report of current market rent for new “take-it-or-leave-it” lease terms; further report as parties failed to act on either of above reports
DESCRIPTION OF DISPUTE
Expert’s report & forensic analysis of challenging business model (including lay-bye sales). Landlord had relocated business from L1 of Brisbane CBD property (by overzealous young property development manager, lacked “people skills”, who should not have also been negotiating leases), to C-minus location with no traffic
Calc loss during disruption. Direct competitor introduced to natural flow of traffic immediately ahead of Applicants business; provide expert’s report of current market rent for new site; further report as “take it or leave it” lease terms causing significant stress to business
How it was settled
Applicant pressured into accepting “settlement” at Conciliation Conference, well below actual loss.
Respondent’s solicitors played “delaying tactics” and forced Applicant to accept compensation. This caused legal fees to escalate.
“Take it or leave it” lease terms & comprehensive analysis of proposed rent more than double what it should have been ($180,000 per annum v $80,000). Due to economic uncertainties (Nov 2008) report also suggests cap on maximum rents charged as percentage of turnover.
A large proportion of purported “incentives” (wide spread practice) covered “first fit” costs of landlord & used as excuse to leverage up rent. Other portion of incentives (and higher rent) likely to damage cash-flow of business at a latter stage in lease.
Expert’s third report simply summarises above, suggests further solutions to modify lease. Queensland Government Landlord’s preference is to do “nothing”.
