The Court refused to vary interlocutory consent orders requiring the lessee to pay rent into court, holding that the consent orders were underpinned by a contract between the parties — the lessee's payment obligations in exchange for the lessor not exercising re-entry rights. Because the orders reflected a contractual bargain and contained no liberty to apply for variation, the higher threshold of exceptional or special circumstances applied, and the defendants' argument that reduced payments would allow business growth was equally relevant at the time the consent orders were made and did not constitute a material change of circumstances. The Court distinguished Next Constructions v Ryan [2026] NSWSC 222 on the basis that those consent orders expressly granted liberty to apply and were in the nature of freezing orders rather than preserving the status quo under a lease.
The full text is available to signed-in members.