The Full Court held that the primary judge erred in applying an unconscionability test to relief from forfeiture under s 15(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas), which confers a broader discretion conditioned by the proceedings and conduct of the parties and all other circumstances, but declined to exercise that power where the lessee's own delay caused the breach and the lessor also had an independent right to terminate without cause under cl 41. The Court held that while failure to expressly analyse the non-mandatory s 22(1) ACL factors is not itself a substantive legal error, the statutory unconscionability inquiry under ss 21-22 ACL sets a lower bar than equitable unconscionability and must not be artificially limited by the unwritten law, though on the facts no unconscionable conduct was established under either standard. The Court left open but did not resolve whether relief against forfeiture can be granted to a lessee who has not exercised an option to renew, noting no reported authority supports such relief.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.