Bullion Gold and Silver Exchange v Crossie Trading [1991] RSLT 2

[1991] RSLT 2 THE RETAIL SHOP LEASES ACT 1984-1990 - ORDERS - (Given in Brisbane on 12 June, 1991) Dispute No. 23 of 1991 In the matter of BULLION GOLD AND SILVER EXCHANGE - Tenant -and- CROSSIE TRADING - Landlord And in the matter of Dispute No. 25 of 1991 SKINNEY LIZZEYS - Tenant -and- DEREK SCOTT Landlord. THE CHAIRMAN: Dispute 25 of 1991 comes before me by Ms Lancaster, who formerly traded as Skinney Lizzeys, and Mr Scott. Dispute 23 of 1991 is a dispute between Mr Slabbert, who trades as Bullion Gold and Silver Exchange, and Mr and Mrs Crossie, who are his landlords. Both shops are in the same arcade, the Centre Arcade in Surfers Paradise. Mr Slabbert occupied under a monthly tenancy, and Ms Lancaster was also a monthly tenant. With regard to the Lancaster and Scott matter, Mr Scott only purchased his shop in January. At that time, a resolution to renovate the arcade, which I understand to be common property, had already been passed. Perhaps I should elaborate by saying that the shops on the arcade are individually owned under the Building Units Titles Act, and that the arcade is common property subject to the control fo the Body Corporate. -- 1 of 2 -- With regard to the matter of Slabbert and Crossie, the position is a little different, in that Mr and Mrs Crossie actually voted for the resolution to renovate the arcade. This difference, as far as I am concerned, is not material. The Retail Shop Leases Act was intended to resolve disputes of certain types between landlords and tenants. it has no application to disputes between tenants and body corporates or other parties to the lease or to any rental agreement. Whether or not there would be some common law claim for reduction of rental or compensation based on temporary interference of access by a third party is very much a common law matter, and not one which should properly be heard by this Tribunal. I am not suggesting that there is necessarily such a claim, but it is something which might be considered. It is therefore with some regret that I must rule that in both of these matters the tenants have no claims against their landlords. it is perhaps a matter for some future consideration and possibly some amendment to the Retail Shop Leases Act. ------ -- 2 of 2 --