The COVID-19 Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment (Emer­gency Mea­sures) Bill 2020 (Bill) was passed last night and received roy­al assent today.

The Bill intro­duces Part 11 into the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 (RLA) (which is a new part).

The new Part 11 pro­vides that reg­u­la­tions MAY pro­vide for cer­tain mat­ters for the pur­pose of respond­ing to the pub­lic health emer­gency caused by COVID-19 pan­dem­ic as follows:

a.

pro­hibit­ing the recov­ery of pos­ses­sion of premis­es by a land­lord in par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances;

b.

pro­hibit­ing the ter­mi­na­tion of a lease by a land­lord in par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances;

c.

reg­u­lat­ing or pre­vent­ing a land­lord from exer­cis­ing or enforc­ing anoth­er right in par­tic­u­lar circumstances;

d.

exempt­ing a ten­ant, or a class of ten­ants, from the oper­a­tion of the RLA or any agree­ment relat­ing to the leas­ing of premises.

A cou­ple of impor­tant points:

  1. No reg­u­la­tions have been enact­ed at the time of writ­ing this note.
  2. The reg­u­la­tions can only be made if Par­lia­ment is not sit­ting, and is unlike­ly to sit with­in 2 weeks after the reg­u­la­tion is made and, in the Minister’s opin­ion, the reg­u­la­tion is rea­son­able to pro­tect the health, safe­ty and wel­fare of lessees under the RLA.
  3. Reg­u­la­tions made under the above pro­vi­sion expire 6 months after the reg­u­la­tion com­mences, unless Par­lia­ment resolves an ear­li­er expiry.
  4. Part 11 applies not only to the RLA but to any oth­er Act relat­ing to the leas­ing of premis­es or land for com­mer­cial pur­pos­es”. It is there­fore pos­si­ble that the amend­ment results in a reg­u­la­tion being made under leg­is­la­tion which gov­erns com­mer­cial leas­es or leas­es not caught by the RLA.

More to fol­low as it comes to hand.


Kind regards

Mary Digiglio

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

The risk of builder insol­ven­cy mid way through a con­struc­tion project is real (and will prob­a­bly be expensive)

Intro­duc­tionThis arti­cle pro­vides guid­ance to those under­tak­ing con­struc­tion works and iden­ti­fies a num­ber of con­tract pro­vi­sions which, if includ­ed in the…

Cross-Com­pa­ny Secu­ri­ty and Liq­uida­tor Chal­lenges: Full Fed­er­al Court Restores Cer­tain­ty in CEG Direct Secu­ri­ties v Coop­er [2025] FCAFC 47

A sig­nif­i­cant deci­sion from the Full Fed­er­al Court has clar­i­fied the lim­its of liq­uida­tors’ pow­ers to unwind cross-com­pa­ny secu­ri­ty grant­ed…

Copy­right and Gen­er­a­tive AI: what Aus­tralia can learn from the Meta and Anthrop­ic Rulings

In 2025, two U.S. court deci­sions, Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthrop­ic, have pro­vid­ed the first real judi­cial answers…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM Online on 21 Octo­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Isabel­la Machin

With a dual back­ground in account­ing and law, Isabel­la brings a depth of com­mer­cial insight and exper­tise to the firm across a wide…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, The reac­tion to Char­lie Kirk’s assas­si­na­tion and its impli­ca­tions for employ­ment law”, pub­lished in Lawyers Week­ly on 26 Sep­tem­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“The reac­tion to Char­lie Kirk’s assas­si­na­tion and its impli­ca­tions for employ­ment law”, pub­lished…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information