Pourzand v Telstra Corporation Ltd

[2014] WASCA 14

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Landlord and Tenant
2. › Lease of commercial premises
3. › Entitlement to terminate lease
4. › Whether works undertaken by landlords amounted to renunciation of lease
5. › Whether landlords' entry constituted breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment
6. › Whether lessee's property manager consented to works
1. Agency
2. › Ostensible authority
3. › Holding out
4. › Whether principal held out property manager as having authority to consent to landlords' entry onto leased premises
5. › Whether reliance on representation of authority was reasonable
6. › Whether circumstances put landlords on inquiry as to agent's authority
1. Landlord and Tenant
2. › Consent and licence
3. › Whether consent to enter leased premises was given
4. › Consent inferred from silence and lack of objection with knowledge
5. › Relevance of agent's uncommunicated subjective expectations
6. › Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 80(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Raising new point on appeal
3. › Whether ostensible authority was pleaded or litigated at trial
4. › Whether evidence could have been adduced to prevent point succeeding

Quick Take

Where a lessee's property manager is held out as the sole point of contact for managing the lease and has actual authority to consent to some works on the premises, the lessee may be bound by the property manager's ostensible authority to consent to more extensive works of the same character. An agent's uncommunicated subjective expectation that the other party would wait for formal approval is irrelevant to whether consent was given. Consent may be inferred from knowledge of proposed works, failure to object, and expression of approval, even where the agent warns only about financial risk.