(Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Australia) The tenant walked out on a lease. He returned the keys and left the premises. The landlord then closed and secured the premises and sought a replacement tenant. The landlord was, however, very particular about a replacement. He could have re-let the premises much earlier than he did.
Held: The landlord was under no duty to mitigate by taking steps to re-let the premises. The handing over and acceptance of the key, the securing of the premises and advertisements seeking a replacement for the tenant had not amounted to an acceptance by the landlord of the tenant’s repudiation of the terms of the lease. Only when a fresh lease was granted to a new tenant would a surrender of the unexpired portion of the lease occur.
Ward J
(1975) 5 ALR 197
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Reichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396617