A partial reduction in the visibility and commercial value of an advertising site, even by 86%, does not frustrate a licence agreement where the site remains usable for the permitted purpose of advertising, the obstruction was foreseeable in a CBD location, and the licensee failed to include a reduction-in-visibility termination clause despite industry practice recommending such clauses. The word 'unsuitable' in a termination clause is to be assessed objectively, not by reference to the licensee's subjective opinion. Economic hardship or reduced profitability alone is insufficient to engage the doctrine of frustration; there must be a radical change in the nature of performance, not merely its expense or onerousness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.