Vickers and Vickers v Stichtenoth Investments Pty Ltd: 1989

(Supreme Court of South Australia) The court considered whether a landlord faced with a tenant who had vacated the property was under a duty to mitigate his losses: ‘There is no reason why in modern times mitigation of damage should not apply. It is an ordinary principle of contract law. With modern leases the law should recognise the importance of the contractual aspect of a lease. Why should not a landlord faced with abandonment take steps to try to reduce his loss? Why should a vendor of tomatoes faced with refusal to take delivery by his purchaser suffer if he does not sell if he can to another purchaser and yet a quiescent and immobile landlord not suffer if he fails to seek another tenant? Modern ideas say that there is no reason for this anomaly’ and ‘mitigation as one ordinary principle of contract law applies to leases. That is to say, when a tenant abandons the leased premises the landlord is under duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking another tenant. Of course circumstances may make it impossible or impractical for him for do that or find a tenant. But I think that the principle applies.’


Bollen J


(1989) 52 SASR 90

Cited by:

CitedReichman 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.

Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247624