Karam Investments Pty Ltd v Close the Loop

[2026] VSC 270

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Leases and Tenancies
2. › Retail Leases
3. › Whether Retail Leases Act 2003 applies — ultimate consumer test — actual use of premises versus written terms of lease
1. Leases and Tenancies
2. › Retail Leases
3. › Abatement of rent and outgoings — damage to premises — Retail Leases Act 2003 s 57 — reinstatement obligations
1. Leases and Tenancies
2. › Commercial Leases
3. › Permitted use — breach — manufacture of TonerPlas — whether product arising from print consumables
1. Negligence
2. › Contributory Negligence
3. › Fire suppression systems — landlord's failure to install — Wrongs Act 1958 ss 25, 26 — apportionment

Where a lease's permitted use provision contains no wholesale/retail characterisation or prohibition, courts must examine actual use to determine whether the Retail Leases Act 2003 applies, and the 'ultimate consumer test' from CB Cold Storage remains the governing framework — the High Court's approach in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek regarding primacy of written terms does not apply to the distinct statutory context of s 4(1) of the RLA.
Lease provisions requiring a tenant to maintain essential safety measures or bear costs of structural compliance are void under s 94 of the RLA for inconsistency with s 52(2), applying the three-limb Caltex Oil test, where the RLA places that responsibility on the landlord.
An expert witness cannot render admissible another expert's report by adopting it where the adopting expert lacks the specialised knowledge (training, study or experience) relevant to the annexed report's subject matter — s 60 of the Evidence Act 2008 does not operate as a 'backdoor' to admission of otherwise inadmissible expert opinion evidence.