Retail Lease Market Rent Review Determination: Is a Valuer’s Report Invalid if it Contains Errors Regarding Repair Costs and Gross vs Net Rent?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Trakboard Pty Ltd v Shaun Stevens Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2025] VCAT 436, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

• Court of Hearing: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Civil Division, Building and Property List
• Presiding Judge: L Forde, Senior Member
• Cause of Action: Application to set aside a market rent review determination under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Retail Lease
  • Keyword 3: Market Rent Review
  • Keyword 4: Expert Determination
  • Keyword 5: Valuer’s Report
  • Keyword 6: Detailed Reasons

Background:

This dispute centred on the rent payable for retail premises following the exercise of an option under a retail premises lease. The Applicant, Trakboard Pty Ltd, is the landlord of premises in South Melbourne, Victoria, leased to the Respondent, Shaun Stevens Pty Ltd, who operates the City Park Hotel. Following the exercise of an option for a further term and a request for an early rent review, a specialist retail valuer, Mr David Tunbridge of CivicMJD Victoria Pty Ltd (the Valuer), was appointed to determine the current market rent. The Valuer published a determination on 19 March 2024, assessing the market rent on a gross basis as $400,000 per annum exclusive of GST.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The landlord sought a declaration that the Valuer’s determination was invalid and did not bind the parties. The challenge was based on two primary grounds:
1. The determination was vitiated by error due to the Valuer’s treatment of repair and maintenance costs.
2. The determination was vitiated by error as the rent was determined on a gross basis, contrary to the terms of the lease and the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic).
The landlord also raised other general shortcomings in the determination. The tenant contended that the determination was valid, arguing that any perceived errors were minor or inadvertent, and that the Valuer had generally complied with their charter and the relevant legislation.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The journey to litigation began in 2008 when the original proprietor of the South Melbourne premises leased them to The Accommodation Company Pty Ltd for a five-year term, with four subsequent five-year options. The landlord, Trakboard Pty Ltd, acquired ownership in 2011. In August 2019, Shaun Stevens Pty Ltd became the tenant, taking over the remaining term of the second renewal period after two of the four options had already been exercised.

Through two deeds of variation to the lease, the second renewed term was extended to 19 May 2023. This date became the crucial reference point for a market rent review pertaining to the third renewal period. In November 2022, the landlord formally notified the tenant of its exercise of option under section 28 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). Shortly thereafter, the tenant requested an early rent review as permitted by section 28A of the Act.

To facilitate this review, Mr David Tunbridge of CivicMJD Victoria Pty Ltd was appointed as a specialist retail valuer by the Victorian Small Business Commission in February 2023. His task was to determine the current market rent for the premises. On 19 March 2024, the Valuer released his determination, setting the market rent at $400,000 per annum, exclusive of GST, as of 19 May 2023, and notably, stating it was on a gross basis. This determination, and the methodologies employed within it, became the focal point of the subsequent dispute before the Tribunal.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The landlord’s case primarily rested on the Valuer’s written determination itself, highlighting specific aspects they considered erroneous or inadequately reasoned.
1. Treatment of Repair and Maintenance Costs: The landlord argued that the Valuer incorrectly attributed a sum of $200,000 per annum for repair and maintenance costs as an expense of the hypothetical tenant. This was asserted to be in breach of sections 37(2)(a) (provisions of the lease) and 37(2)(c) (landlord’s outgoings) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic), or, in the alternative, that the Valuer failed to provide detailed reasons for attributing this sum, as required by section 37(6) of the Act. The landlord pointed to section 52 of the Act and clauses 3.1 and 3.2.1-3.2.5 of the lease, which place primary responsibility for structural and major repairs on the landlord, while the tenant is responsible for general maintenance.
2. Determination of Rent on Gross Basis: The landlord contended that the Valuer made a fundamental error by explicitly stating that the rent was determined on a “gross basis,” contrary to the agreed “net basis” structure of the lease. This was argued to be a failure to have regard to sections 37(2)(a) and (c) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) and an error in the construction of the lease.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The tenant primarily relied on the Valuer’s general compliance statement within the determination, where the Valuer asserted adherence to both the lease provisions and the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). The tenant also emphasized the Valuer’s expertise and authority in property valuations.
1. Regarding Repair and Maintenance Costs: The tenant argued that the $200,000 figure for repairs and maintenance was derived from an industry standard of 10.4% of turnover.
2. Regarding Gross vs. Net Rent: The tenant asserted that the reference to “gross basis” in the determination was an obvious inadvertent typographical error. They provided evidence of an email from the Valuer, sent to the tenant on 24 February 2025, which clarified that the word “gross” should have read “net” and that the error stemmed from not removing a standard template statement. The tenant also pointed to other parts of the determination that referred to “net rental,” “net operating profit,” and analysis being “undertaken on a net effective rent basis,” suggesting the Valuer’s overall intention was to determine rent on a net basis.

Core Dispute Points:

The core of the dispute rested on whether the Valuer’s determination met the contractual requirements of the lease and the statutory requirements of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic), particularly concerning the provision of detailed reasons and accurate application of the lease’s financial structure (net vs. gross rent). The Tribunal had to assess if the alleged errors were sufficiently fundamental to vitiate the expert determination.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The judgment provided in this matter does not contain specific details or a comparative analysis of the statements made in affidavits by either the Applicant or the Respondent. While it is standard practice in legal proceedings for parties to present their factual matrix and supporting evidence through affidavits, the Tribunal’s written reasons primarily focused on the Valuer’s determination itself, the lease provisions, and the statutory requirements under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). Consequently, the strategic intent behind the content of any affidavits, or any specific procedural directions relating to them, is not detailed in the public record of this judgment.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

The judgment does not detail any specific interlocutory orders, procedural arrangements, or special court directions required by the Judge prior to the final hearing. The provided document outlines the final orders and the reasons leading to them.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing served as the critical arena for the landlord and tenant to test the validity of the Valuer’s market rent determination. The Tribunal meticulously scrutinised the Valuer’s report against the express terms of the lease and the stringent requirements of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic).

The landlord vigorously cross-examined the Valuer’s methodology, focusing on the lack of transparency surrounding the $200,000 allocation for repair and maintenance costs. Despite the tenant’s suggestion of an industry standard, the absence of any explicit reference or explanation within the Valuer’s determination itself was a crucial point. The Court observed the significant gap in reasoning for this substantial deduction, noting that simply acknowledging sections of the Act and the lease was insufficient to demonstrate how these provisions were actually applied in arriving at the figure.

The most decisive confrontation revolved around the “gross basis” versus “net basis” rent determination. The landlord presented the clear contradiction: a lease structured on a net basis, yet the Valuer’s final conclusion explicitly stated a gross rent. The tenant attempted to mitigate this by arguing it was a typographical error, supported by a post-determination email from the Valuer. However, the Tribunal exercised judicial caution, deeming the Valuer’s private email to the tenant, sent almost a year after the determination, inadmissible as a clarification or amendment. This was not a minor erratum but a fundamental alteration to the core of the determination, which could not be corrected retrospectively through private correspondence.

The Judge’s decision-making process was firmly rooted in established legal principles concerning expert determinations. The Court was guided by the principle that an expert determination can only be set aside in cases of fraud, collusion, or a fundamental mistake that shows the valuation was not in accordance with the contractual charter. Crucially, the Court reiterated the high standard for detailed reasons, particularly under section 37(6) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic).

The Court considered authoritative statements on when an expert determination may be set aside:

“I agree with the judge that the question of whether it is open to review an expert determination on the ground of error is in the first place to be decided according to whether the determination answers the contractual description of what the expert was required to determine. I also agree with the judge that the question of whether an error in determination deprives the determination of compliance with the contractual description of what the expert was required to determine is in the first place to be answered according to whether the error occurred in respect of a task which the contract entrusted to the expert. As Mason, P. explained in Holt v. Cox, although mistake is not itself a ground for vitiation of a final and binding expert determination, a mistake may still be of such a nature that the resultant determination is beyond the realm of contractual contemplation – beyond anything which the parties may be supposed to have intended to be final and binding – and therefore susceptible to review.”

This passage highlighted that a mistake, even if unintentional, could fundamentally undermine the contractual purpose of the determination, thereby rendering it reviewable. The Tribunal found that the Valuer’s errors were precisely of this fundamental nature.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Tribunal, after careful deliberation, issued the following orders:
1. It was declared that the undated rental determination of Mr David Tunbridge of CivicMJD Victoria Pty Ltd, sent to the parties on 19 March 2024, in respect of hotel premises located in South Melbourne, Victoria (Determination), failed to comply with section 37 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) and was set aside.
2. It was declared that the Determination did not bind the parties.
3. Costs were reserved. Any application for costs was to be made no later than 6 June 2025.
4. The principal registrar was directed to refer any application for costs to Senior Member Forde for further directions.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case underscores the critical importance of a valuer strictly adhering to their “charter” – the specific terms of the engagement, which include the lease provisions and the requirements of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). It highlights that a determination can be vitiated not only by a fundamental error in calculation or methodology but also by a failure to provide “detailed reasons” that enable the parties to understand the basis of the determination. The Court’s refusal to accept a post-determination email as a valid amendment or clarification reinforces that the determination must be self-contained and accurate at the time of its publication. This sets a high bar for expert reports in retail lease disputes, requiring complete transparency and robust justification for all key figures and conclusions.

Judgment Points:

The Tribunal’s ruling presents several noteworthy points. Firstly, the emphasis on section 37(6) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) demonstrates that “detailed reasons” go beyond merely listing the statutory considerations; they demand an articulation of how those considerations were applied. Secondly, the Court’s stance on the “gross” versus “net” rent declaration, despite other references to “net” within the report, indicates that a clear, unambiguous error in the ultimate conclusion of the determination is considered a fundamental, vitiating mistake. Such an error, even if claimed to be a template oversight, undermines the entire report, as it directly contradicts the lease’s financial structure.

Legal Basis:

The Tribunal’s judgment was primarily founded on sections 37 and 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic).
* Section 37(2) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic): This section specifies the matters a valuer must consider when determining current market rent, including the provisions of the lease, the rent for unoccupied premises for a similar use, the landlord’s outgoings (to which the tenant contributes), and rent concessions, while excluding goodwill and tenant’s fixtures.
* Section 37(5) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic): This mandates that the specialist retail valuer must take into account the matters set out in subsection (2).
* Section 37(6)(b) and (c) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic): These crucial subsections require the valuation to be in writing, contain “detailed reasons” for the determination, and “specify the matters to which the valuer had regard” for making the determination.
* Section 52(2) of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic): This section outlines the landlord’s responsibility for maintaining the structure, fixtures, plant, equipment, and essential services of the retail premises. This impacts how repair and maintenance costs are allocated between landlord and tenant in a hypothetical market rent assessment.

Evidence Chain:

The landlord’s victory was built on a precise evidence chain derived directly from the Valuer’s determination itself and the lease.
1. Valuer’s Determination (Internal Inconsistency): The document contained a table listing “Repairs & Maintenance” as an expense of the hypothetical tenant at $200,000 (10.4% of total revenue) without any explanation or justification. Later, the determination explicitly stated: “It is also acknowledged that the rent is on a gross basis with the lessor being responsible for the outgoings in accordance with the lease agreement.”
2. Lease Provisions: The lease clearly outlined repair and maintenance responsibilities (Clauses 3.1, 3.2.1-3.2.5), placing significant obligations on the landlord as implied by section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic), which contradicts a hypothetical tenant bearing a $200,000 repair cost without robust explanation. The lease was unequivocally a “net rent” lease.
3. Excluded Evidence: The Valuer’s email to the tenant, clarifying the “gross” to “net” error, was not admitted by the Tribunal because it was a private communication, made almost a year after the determination, and represented a significant alteration to the core finding rather than a mere clarification.

Judicial Original Quotation:

The Court emphasized the high standard for detailed reasons in expert determinations:

“In Adwell Holdings Pty Ltd v Bourne, Young CJ in Eq considered the requirement for evaluation to contain detailed reasons in the context of s 19 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 of New South Wales… ‘However, I would agree with Mr Sharpe that the contract required the valuer to give “detailed” reasons; this goes further than merely requiring “sufficient” reasons and requires the valuer to set out details as to how he or she arrived at the determination. Further, when it says that it is to specify the matters to which the valuer had regard, that does not just mean setting out by rote what is in the Act, but actually dealing with how those matters were considered in the process of making the valuation.’”

This dictum highlights that mere recitation of statutory criteria is insufficient; the valuer must demonstrate a clear, logical path showing how each criterion was specifically applied to the facts and evidence to arrive at the determination. This ensures transparency and allows parties to understand the underlying reasoning.

“It is clear that it is not sufficient for a valuer to ‘leap to a judgment’: the valuation must disclose the steps of reasoning. This position is, in my view, reinforced by the provisions of s 37(6) of the Retail Leases Act. Not only does para (b) of this sub-section require ‘detailed reasons’ for the valuer’s determination, but in para (c), adds the requirement that the valuer ‘specify the matters to which the valuer had regard’. These provisions are relevantly the same as the New South Wales equivalent provisions considered in Adwell. Clearly, both the Victorian and New South Wales provisions eschew and do not entertain any ‘blinding flash of light’ as satisfying their ‘requirements’.”

This further reinforces that a valuer’s conclusion must be supported by a visible, logical progression of thought and analysis. The absence of such detailed steps for key figures, like the $200,000 repair cost, was a fatal flaw.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Valuer and by extension the tenant, failed on two primary grounds. Firstly, regarding the repair and maintenance costs, the Valuer included a substantial $200,000 figure as a tenant’s expense without any discernible explanation of its source, its calculation, or how this aligned with either the lease’s specific clauses (3.1, 3.2) or the implied landlord obligations under section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic). This constituted a lack of “detailed reasons” and a failure to specify how relevant matters were considered in the valuation process, thereby vitiating the determination by mistake.

Secondly, the Valuer’s unequivocal statement that the rent was on a “gross basis” in the final conclusion was a fundamental error in the construction of the lease. Despite other references to “net” elsewhere in the report, the decisive concluding statement created an inherent contradiction with the lease’s actual “net” structure. The tenant’s attempt to remedy this by presenting a post-determination email from the Valuer was unsuccessful, as the Tribunal ruled it was not a valid amendment or clarification to the formal determination. This meant the core determination remained fundamentally flawed, failing to accurately reflect the agreed terms of the lease and the statutory framework. The Valuer’s expertise could not override the explicit statutory requirement for detailed reasons and contractual alignment.

Implications

1. Transparency is Paramount: Any expert determination affecting significant financial obligations must clearly explain its methodology and figures. Vague justifications are insufficient.
2. Know Your Lease: Both landlords and tenants should thoroughly understand their lease agreements, especially clauses relating to rent review, outgoings, and repair responsibilities, as these form the “charter” for any valuer.
3. Statutory Compliance is Non-Negotiable: Expert valuers must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, such as providing “detailed reasons,” as mechanical compliance or template errors can invalidate their work.
4. Careful with Clarifications: Post-determination “clarifications” or amendments, especially if not formally sanctioned or broadly communicated, may be disregarded by the courts if they fundamentally alter the original determination.
5. Challenge When Justified: If an expert report contains fundamental errors or lacks essential reasoning, challenging it through the appropriate legal channels can be a valid and necessary step to protect your rights.

Q&A Session

Q1: What exactly constitutes “detailed reasons” for a market rent determination?
A1: “Detailed reasons” require the valuer not just to list the factors considered under legislation or the lease, but to specifically explain how each factor was analysed, what evidence was relied upon, and the logical steps taken to arrive at the final rent figure. It’s about showing the full reasoning process, not just the conclusion.

Q2: Can a valuer correct an obvious error, like “gross” instead of “net” rent, after issuing the determination?
A2: While minor clerical errors might be corrected, a fundamental error in the core outcome, such as determining rent on a gross basis when the lease specifies net, generally cannot be corrected through informal means like an email to one party. Such a significant change may require a fresh determination or a formal amendment process if permissible by the terms of engagement, as the original determination is considered binding at the time it is issued.

Q3: How often do courts set aside expert determinations?
A3: Courts generally uphold expert determinations because parties agree to be bound by the expert’s judgment. However, a determination may be set aside in limited circumstances, typically involving fraud, collusion, or a fundamental mistake where the expert has acted outside their “charter” or failed to follow express contractual or statutory requirements, as demonstrated in this case.

Appendix: Core Practical Component Library

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Commercial Lease – Retail Lease Market Rent Review Determination Dispute
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
The core legal test standards in this case relate specifically to market rent review and valuer obligations under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic), which intersects with general Commercial Law and Property Law principles.

• Market Rent Review (Section 37 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)):
  • Determination Criteria (s 37(2)): The valuer must determine the rent obtainable in a free and open market between a willing landlord and willing tenant in an arm’s length transaction, having regard to:
    • The specific provisions of the lease.
    • The rent reasonably expected for unoccupied premises offered for lease for the same or a substantially similar use.
    • The landlord’s outgoings to which the tenant is liable to contribute.
    • Rent concessions and other benefits offered to prospective tenants of unoccupied retail premises.
    • Crucially, it must NOT take into account the value of goodwill created by the tenant’s occupation or the value of the tenant’s fixtures and fittings.
  • Valuer’s Obligation (s 37(5)): The specialist retail valuer must take into account all the matters set out in subsection (2).
  • Reasons Requirement (s 37(6)): The valuation must be:
    • In writing.
    • Contain detailed reasons for the specialist retail valuer’s determination.
    • Specify the matters to which the valuer had regard for the purposes of making their determination.
• Landlord’s Repair Obligations (Section 52 of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic)):
  • General Obligation (s 52(2)): The landlord is responsible for maintaining in a condition consistent with the condition of the premises when the lease was entered into:
    • The structure of, and fixtures in, the retail premises.
    • Plant and equipment at the retail premises.
    • Appliances, fittings and fixtures provided under the lease by the landlord relating to gas, electricity, water, drainage or other services.
  • This is crucial as it determines which party is ultimately responsible for certain repair costs, influencing a hypothetical tenant’s assumed expenses in a market rent valuation.
• Core Test for Setting Aside Expert Determination (Common Law Principles, applied in Retail Leases context):
  • An expert determination, being final and binding by contractual agreement, can only be set aside in relatively high risk circumstances of:
    • Fraud.
    • Collusion.
    • A mistake that demonstrates the valuation was not made in accordance with the terms of the contract (the valuer’s charter). This mistake must be so fundamental that the resultant determination is “beyond the realm of contractual contemplation.”
  • Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or minor errors in judgment are generally insufficient to vitiate an expert determination.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
If a direct statutory challenge to a valuer’s determination fails, parties might consider equitable principles or common law doctrines as alternative avenues, particularly in civil and commercial matters.

• Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
  • If a party (e.g., the landlord or a previous valuer) made a clear and unequivocal representation or promise (e.g., “the rent review will strictly follow the net lease terms, excluding major structural repair costs from tenant’s burden”), and the other party (e.g., the tenant) acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise (e.g., continuing with the lease or making investments based on an understanding of rental costs), and it would be unconscionable for the promisor to go back on their word.
  • Result Reference: Equity may “estop” the promisor from denying the representation, potentially leading to a declaration that the determination is invalid or that a different rental figure applies, even without explicit contractual terms.
• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
  • If one party has received a benefit (e.g., a higher rent payment based on an invalid determination) at the expense of the other, and it would be against good conscience for them to retain that benefit without restitution.
  • Result Reference: The Court may order the restitution of the unjustly acquired benefit or, in property-related contexts, declare a Constructive Trust over any property or funds if an asset has been acquired or retained through unconscionable conduct relating to a specific contribution or understanding.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
* Regular Thresholds:
* Timeliness of Application: While not explicitly discussed in this judgment, applications to challenge expert determinations or to seek declarations under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) generally have statutory limitation periods. For instance, disputes concerning market rent determinations or other matters under the RLA are typically brought before VCAT within specific timeframes as outlined by the Act or Tribunal rules. Failure to adhere to these can relatively highly risk the validity of the application.
* Basis for Challenge: The threshold for challenging an expert determination is high, requiring proof of fraud, collusion, or a fundamental mistake, rather than mere disagreement with the expert’s judgment.

• Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
  • Extension of Time: In civil litigation, if a limitation period has expired, an application for an extension of time may be possible. This often requires demonstrating a good reason for the delay and that the other party would not suffer significant prejudice. For retail lease disputes, if a challenge was delayed, arguments could be made regarding the late discovery of the fundamental errors or a reasonable inability to bring the application earlier.
  • Jurisdictional Error (Administrative Law overlap): While expert determinations are not generally subject to judicial review in the same way as administrative decisions, a fundamental error that means the expert has failed to apply the correct legal test or considered irrelevant factors (or failed to consider relevant factors) might be argued as a form of jurisdictional error, leading to the determination being set aside. This is a higher threshold than a simple error of fact.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
* Citation Angle: It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving retail lease disputes concerning market rent reviews, particularly when challenging the validity of a valuer’s determination due to inadequate reasons or fundamental errors in applying the lease terms and statutory provisions. It is also relevant for arguments about what constitutes a “detailed reason” under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic) and the limits of informal corrections to formal expert reports.
* Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves a market rent determination where the valuer has failed to provide clear, detailed reasons for key figures (e.g., repair costs) or has made a fundamental error regarding the basis of rent calculation (e.g., gross vs. net), citing Trakboard Pty Ltd v Shaun Stevens Pty Ltd can strengthen your argument that such a determination should be set aside. It supports the principle that a determination must be robustly reasoned and accurate in its core findings.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites a case upholding an expert determination, you should emphasize the “fundamental nature of the errors” and the “absence of detailed reasons” in the current matter to argue that this precedent is not applicable. Highlight any informal attempts to amend the determination as per Trakboard Pty Ltd, arguing that such actions are not legally effective.

Conclusion
This judgment from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal serves as a vital reminder that expert determinations, while generally binding, are not immune from scrutiny. They must rigorously adhere to the contractual charter and statutory demands for transparency and accuracy. For parties engaged in retail lease market rent reviews, understanding the precise requirements for a valuer’s report, especially regarding detailed reasons and correct application of lease terms, is crucial. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Trakboard Pty Ltd v Shaun Stevens Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2025] VCAT 436), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.