| Case Title: | Xynias v Stones Corner Village Investments Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 281 (31 October 2025) |
| Jurisdiction: | Supreme Court of Queensland Trial Division – Hearing |
| Parties: | Rigas Xynias, Michael Boubaris & Ben Chee See [Applicants] Stones Corner Village Investments Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 120 299 078) [ Respondent] |
This matter concerns a pharmacy business (the Applicants) who hold a registered lease for Shops 4 and 5 on the ground floor at 401-405 Logan Road, Greenslopes QLD 4120.
The landlord and owner of the premises (the Respondent) served a letter upon the Applicants on 30 April 2025, notifying them of their intention to relocate the Applicant’s business, giving reason of their intention to demolish and rebuild on the site.
The alternative location for the premises offered is situated at 409 Logan Road, Greenslopes QLD 4120.
Orders sought
The Applicants seek to have the relocation notice declared void and of no effect.
Background
The Respondent has taken vacant possession of most of the 25 tenancies in the shopping centre that the Applicant currently operates from. The tenants remaining are Aldi, a coffee shop and the Applicant in these proceedings.
Issues
The issues in question are as follows:
- Does the lease that the Applicant holds permit relocation for demolition and reconstruction (Clause 13.24 – Refurbishing, redeveloping or extending the premises);
- Whether relocation needs to be in the same complex or in another building; and
- Whether the premises offered for relocation are ‘reasonably comparable’ to the current premises (Clause 13.24 of the lease, and s46D(2)(b) of the Retail Shops Leases Act 1994 (Qld)
Issue 1 – Clause 13.24 of the lease (refurbish, redevelop or extend)
For varying reasons, the court found that the meaning of the term ‘demolition’ was not captured within the clause in the lease.
The court also confirmed that although the Clause refers to a relocation within the same building, the Defendant’s assertion that if the building no longer exists because it has been demolished bears no weight.
Issue 2 – Relocation within the complex?
The Respondent asserts that the alternative premises offered to the Applicant, which is not physically adjoining the original complex, has been incorporated into the complex by the Respondent to be part of the complex.
The court rejected the notion that the alternative property offered was incorporated into the complex, but rather it was presented that way for the purpose of relocation.
The main issue of incorporation was that the new premises presents as a standalone shop with another (unrelated) retail building separating it from the original shopping centre-stye complex.
The court found that the relocation notice is void and of no effect because the new location offered is not within the current complex.
Issue 3: Reasonably comparable alternative premises
Issues with the alternative premises offered include:
- The new alternative premises is split between two levels;
- Upstairs and downstairs levels are not connected internally. The upstairs section has stairs that lead down to Logan Road, outside the premises;
- The alternative premises has an overall smaller useable floor area for the Applicant.
The court found that:
- The upstairs area could not be used as part of the pharmacy;
- The suggestion by the landlord that the tenant could use upstairs as storage does not work for the Applicant, because the Applicant already uses less than the 12 sqm storage space they currently have, and the alternative premises’ upstairs space is 55 sqm. In addition it would require transport of stock upstairs from the street, as opposed adjacent to the loading dock currently;
- Transporting potentially sensitive product on the street could pose a risk;
- The pharmacy does not have a requirement for a large amenity or administration area upstairs;
- Installation of a lift, as suggested by the Respondent, does not improve the situation for the tenant. This option was also not presented as part of the relocation terms;
- The location of the alternative premises for customer access is reasonably comparable as both have certain benefits and drawbacks;
- The court found that the significant difference in parking facilities a detriment to the alternative premises;
- The court found that delivery access was more favourable at the existing premises due to ease of accessibility and unloading;
- The rental at the alternative premises offered is 79% of the current rental. The court saw this as an indication that the more expensive premises were more desirable;
- The lease for the alternative premises would be a sublease with the defendant, rather than a head lease at the current premises due to different ownership. In addition the Applicant can trade slightly outside its boundaries in the mall (as negotiated by the owner), and there appears little or no capacity to do this at the alternative premises;
- The Court accepted that commercially, the relocation may not have a significant impact on the Applicant’s trading performance mainly due to the fact that the pharmacy’s trading figures show an online income of 40%.
The court concluded that, on the balance of information, the Relocation Notice issued by the Respondent to the Applicants on 30 April 2025 is void and of no effect.
To view the full judgment, CLICK HERE
[ DISCLAIMER ]
The materials available on or through this website are distributed as an information source only.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and any of its Associates makes no statement, representation or warranty about the quality, accuracy, context, completeness, availability or suitability for any purpose of, and you should not rely on, any materials available on or through this website.
Despite our best efforts, Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and its Associates make no warranties that the materials available on or through this website are free of infection by computer viruses or other contamination, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Anna Rosemarie Pty Ltd and its Associates disclaims, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages and costs you or any other person or entity might incur for any reason including as a result of the materials available on or through this website being in any way inaccurate, out of context, incomplete, unavailable, not up to date or unsuitable for any purpose.
A user of this website who uses links to an external website and material available on or through that other website acknowledges that the disclaimer and any terms of use, including licence terms, set out on the other external website govern the use which may be made of that material.
Author: Anna Rosemarie
Entrepreneur