Make good disputes often arise when a long commercial lease ends. A recent NSW Supreme Court decision shows that their resolution depends on reading the lease as a whole, rather than interpreting a single phrase in isolation.
Allied Pinnacle Pty Ltd v G R Mailman & Associates Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 87 concerned commercial premises at Huntingwood in Western Sydney. The tenant took a ten-year lease in 2015, with options for two further five-year terms, and installed a substantial fit-out at the start of its tenancy. The current landlord bought the premises in late 2017. The tenant did not exercise its option and vacated in August 2025, leaving the fit-out in place.
The central question was the meaning of clause A2.1, which required the tenant to yield up the premises consistent with their “condition” at the commencement of the lease. The landlord argued this meant restoring the pre-fit-out layout. Muston J preferred the tenant’s view that “condition” referred to the standard of the premises, not their configuration. The word was used in that sense in clauses A2.2(c) and A24.5, and the more specific make good provisions in clause A24, which prevailed, contained no reinstatement obligation. Clause B1(22) also gave the tenant a discretionary right to remove its fixtures, which would have been pointless if removal was compulsory.
The tenant did not escape liability entirely. Clause A24.3(b) required repainting of “all painted surfaces”, including the exterior, and the tenant was liable for outstanding redecoration works, including furniture removal, internal repainting and carpet works. The Court rejected arguments based on failure to mitigate, repudiation, waiver, estoppel and an implied duty of good faith, and found that the unconscionable conduct claim would have failed in any event. Damages were referred to by the referee.
Ultimately, the decision illustrates that general yield-up wording will be read in light of the lease’s more specific make good provisions.
