top of page

Interpreting Lease Options: Lessons from Willis Australia Ltd v AMP Capital Investors Ltd [2023] NSWCA 158

  • Ron Zucker, Eollyn Cortes, Sagang Chung and Julia Zou
  • Jun 17
  • 2 min read

Key Takeaways

 

  • Drafting Clarity: Careful attention must be given to drafting option clauses and interpreting languages in lease documents to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes;

  • Tenant Compliance: Landlords must ensure that the tenant’s notice and actions strictly adhere to the lease terms;

  • Judicial Interpretation: Court will interpret lease terms based on their natural and ordinary meaning; and

  • Commercial Practicality: Courts aim to avoid interpretations that lead to a commercial inconvenience or requiring redrafting lease documents.



Background  


In the case of Willis Australia Ltd v AMP Capital Investors

Ltd [2023] NSWCA 158, the dispute centred on the interpretation of lease terms between Willis Australia (Willis) and AMP Capital Investors Ltd (AMP). The lease was for a term of six years with two options:


  1. An option to renew the existing lease for an additional four years; and

  2. An option to lease the remaining space on level 15 (expanded space) for four years.


Willis notified AMP of its intentions to exercise both options in late December 2019 but withdrew the notice for the expanded space in August 2020, claiming the option was not validly exercised due to unmet conditions. The primary judge ordered specific performance, requiring Willis to take the expanded space,  concluding that AMP had waived the unmet conditions.


Issue


The appeal focused on:


  1. Whether Willis validly exercised the option by satisfying all conditions in the lease or if partial compliance was sufficient.

  2. Whether the option was an irrevocable offer or a conditional contract.


Held 


The appeal judge determined that Willis had not met the conditions to validly exercise the option, and AMP could not waive these obligations. Willis was not required to take the expanded space. The decision was based on the lease’s construction rather than characterising the option as a conditional contract or irrevocable offer.  


For assistance with drafting your leases and how this case impacts you, please contact one of our people.


Ron Zucker 0410 590 111

Eollyn Cortes 0478 727 395

Sagang Chung 0431 435 333

Julia Zou 0426 670 202

Comments


Featured Posts

Suite 1, Lvl 27, 420 George Street, Sydney, NSW 2000,

PO Box 4313, Sydney, NSW, 2001.

Ph: +61 2 8224 0200

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

Henry William Lawyers acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land where we work and live, the Gadigal of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging. We celebrate the stories, culture and traditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders of all communities who also work and live on this land.

Henry William Lawyers is an incorporated legal practice (which is a corporation for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)), and not a partnership.  The use of the title ‘Partner’ is used to denote seniority and does not, and is not, intended to signify that Henry William Lawyers is a partnership or is contracting otherwise than as a corporation.

bottom of page