Janos v Chama Motors Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 238

Young JA:

5. A lease is brought to an end by re-entry. There is no doubt at all that the landlord re-entered in the present case. The lease thus came to an end and could not be revived, Arnold v Mann [1957] HCA 64; 99 CLR 462. Any tenancy of the appellant after the landlord had accepted the back rent and let the appellant back into possession had to be because there was a fresh lease as a matter of law.

6. In equity, if relief against forfeiture is granted and the lease has been determined by re-entry, the proper order is that the landlord, at the tenant’s expense, execute and deliver a new lease for the balance of the term of the determined lease: see Dendy v Evans [1910] 1 KB 263, 266. …

7. …Secondly, it has not yet been authoritatively decided whether or not a registered Torrens System lease continues to exist, despite re-entry, until the Registrar-General extinguishes it under s 55 of the Real Property Act 1900, a section which notes that such a lease, after re-entry, determines upon the Registrar-General’s entry on the register.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: