The $83,000 mistake in a commercial lease

Hoang v Hungry Jack’s: How One Word in a Lease Decided $83,000 a Year The episode explains the 2026 Supreme Court of New South Wales case Hoang v Hungry Jack’s, a dispute over an $83,000 annual rent gap caused by differing interpretations of how market rent should be assessed under a registered commercial lease for a Hungry Jack’s drive-through in Taree. Hungry Jack’s argued the valuer should assess only bare land because it built the restaurant, claiming “premises” meant land only, the building was not a fixture or was a lessee’s fixture, and alternatively that charging rent on the building was unconscionable under the ACL. Justice Pike rejected all arguments, holding the lease defined “premises” to include the building, the restaurant was a fixture owned by the landlord, it was not removable as a lessee’s fixture, and the earlier 2004 agreement for lease was excluded by the registered lease and entire agreement clause. The episode draws seven lessons on definitions, rent review drafting, ownership of improvements, registered documents, entire agreement clauses, due diligence, and getting terms right at the start.

00:00 The $83K Dispute

01:21 Podcast Intro Disclaimer

02:27 Deal Setup 2004 Lease

03:21 New Owner Rent Review

05:12 Hungry Jack's Three Arguments

08:06 Court Rejects Arguments

12:13 Seven Lessons Breakdown

17:55 Final Takeaways Outro

Hoang v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 775: 

www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2026/775.html