Court of Appeal Landmark Guarantor Liability Decision

---

LINX LAW

客户最新资讯 | Commercial Litigation

近期胜诉 | 2026 年 3 月

Recent Win | March 2026

We are pleased to announce that Linx Law recently acted for the applicants in a successful appeal before the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, in a case with significant implications for guarantors of commercial leases. The Court allowed our clients' appeal, overturning a Trial Division decision that had held them liable for rent payable under a new periodic tenancy entered into after the original leases had been terminated. 

Our clients, the applicants, were the director and secretary of APlus Capital Pty Ltd (APlus), a company that had taken an assignment of 22 serviced apartment leases in 2017. As part of that assignment, our clients executed guarantees under Transfer Deeds, promising that APlus would pay rent and fulfil its obligations under each lease. In September 2018, the landlords accepted APlus's repudiation of each lease, bringing those leases to an end. The landlords then allowed APlus to remain in possession on a new month-to-month basis — all parties accepted this was a fresh agreement, not a continuation under the original leases' overholding provisions. APlus vacated in January 2019. The landlords commenced proceedings seeking recovery of unpaid rent and outgoings during the period of APlus's month-to-month occupation. VCAT found our clients liable under their guarantees for amounts attributable to that post-termination period — a finding affirmed by Ginnane J in the Trial Division when our clients sought leave to appeal. 

The central question before the Court of Appeal was whether the guarantee in clause 8.1 of the Transfer Deeds extended to obligations arising under a new agreement for lease, or whether it was limited to obligations arising under the original lease (including its overholding provisions). Clause 8.1 provided that the guarantors guaranteed that the new tenant:will pay the rent promptly and will do everything the lease requires. The respondents argued this obligation followed the tenant into any period of possession, regardless of the legal basis for that occupation. Our clients argued the guarantee was limited to obligations arising under the lease itself. 

The Court of Appeal (Niall CJ, Walker and Lyons JJA) granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The Court held that our clients' guarantee was limited to obligations arising under the original leases — it did not extend to rent payable under the new month-to-month tenancy. Key aspects of the reasoning include: 

• Construction of clause 3: The Court found that clause 3 of the Transfer Deeds — which required the new tenant to "pay the Rent and do everything else required by the lease for the remainder of the lease and during any period it stays in possession after it ends" — imposed one composite obligation tethered to rent required by the original lease, including under its overholding provisions. It did not create a free-standing obligation to pay whatever rent might be payable under a future agreement.
• Guarantee mirrors clause 3: Because clause 8.1 guaranteed the tenant's obligations as set out in clause 3, and those obligations were confined to the original lease, the guarantee was similarly limited. The guarantee did not, absent clear words, extend to obligations under a new legal arrangement between the tenant and the landlord.
• New agreement outside the guarantee's scope: Because the month-to-month tenancy was a fresh agreement — not a continuation under the original leases' overholding provisions — rent payable under it was not covered by the guarantee. The Court noted it would be commercially incongruous for a Transfer Deed, primarily concerned with transferring existing obligations, to impose liability on guarantors for obligations under a future arrangement whose terms would not depend on the original lease.
• No ambiguity — strict construction principle not needed: The Court reached its conclusion on ordinary principles of contractual construction without needing to invoke the strictissimi juris principle (the rule that ambiguous guarantee provisions are construed in favour of the guarantor). However, it noted that had there been any ambiguity, the strict construction principle would have compelled the same result.

This decision is important for anyone who has provided a guarantee in connection with a commercial lease assignment. It confirms that: 

• Guarantors are not automatically liable for obligations arising under new lease arrangements entered into after the original lease ends, even if the tenant remains in the same premises.
• The scope of a guarantor's liability is determined by the proper construction of the guarantee and the underlying obligation it secures — a guarantee tied to "the lease" will generally not follow a tenant into a new tenancy arrangement.
• Courts will construe guarantee clauses by reference to the text, context and purpose of the whole deed — and in cases of ambiguity, will resolve doubt in favour of the guarantor.

If you have questions about your obligations as a guarantor under a commercial lease, or if you are involved in a dispute arising from a lease assignment or transfer, our experienced commercial litigation and leasing team is here to help. Please contact Linx Law to speak with one of our lawyers. 

This judgment may be appealed to the High Court and is therefore not necessarily final. If the case is appealed to the High Court in the follow-up, we will continue to update you on the relevant progress in due course. 

This article is intended as general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, please contact our office. 

Linx Law | Commercial Litigation & Leasing 

 [1] Zhao v Kontomichalos [2026] VSCA 30 

我们欣然宣布，凌克斯律师事务所近期代表申请人在维多利亚州最高法院上诉法庭的上诉案中胜诉，该案对商业租赁担保人的责任认定具有重大指导意义。上诉法院支持了我方客户的上诉请求，撤销了初审法庭作出的、判定客户需为原租赁合同终止后新订立的定期租赁协议下应付租金承担责任的判决。 

我方客户即本案申请人，为 APlus 资本私人有限公司（下称 APlus 公司）的董事及秘书。该公司于 2017 年受让了 22 份服务式公寓的租赁合同，我方客户作为受让环节的一部分，签署了《转让契据》项下的担保文件，承诺 APlus 公司将依约支付各租赁合同项下的租金并履行全部相关义务。 2018 年 9 月，房东接受了 APlus 公司对所有租赁合同的违约解除通知，原租赁合同正式终止。此后，房东允许 APlus 公司继续占有租赁物业，并订立了新的按月租赁协议，各方均确认该协议为全新约定，并非依据原租赁合同的超期占有条款延续的租赁关系。APlus 公司于 2019 年 1 月搬离该租赁物业。 房东随即提起诉讼，要求追偿 APlus 公司在按月租赁期间拖欠的租金及相关费用。维多利亚州民事和行政仲裁庭判定我方客户需依据其签署的担保文件，对原合同终止后产生的上述款项承担担保责任；我方客户申请上诉许可后，初审法庭的金南法官对该认定结果予以维持。 

本案上诉法庭审理的核心问题为：《转让契据》第 8.1 条中的担保条款，是否延伸适用于新租赁协议项下产生的义务，抑或仅限定于原租赁合同（包括其超期占有条款）项下的义务。 第 8.1 条约定，担保人担保新承租人需：及时支付租金，并履行租赁合同约定的所有义务。 被申请人（房东）主张，无论承租人占有租赁物业的法律依据为何，该担保义务均随承租人延续至任何物业占有期间；我方客户则主张，案涉担保义务的范围仅限定于原租赁合同本身项下的义务。 

维多利亚州上诉法院首席大法官尼尔、大法官沃克及莱昂斯批准了我方的上诉许可并支持全部上诉请求，判定我方客户的担保责任范围仅限定于原租赁合同项下，并不延伸适用于新的按月租赁协议项下的应付租金。该判决的核心推理依据包括： 

1. 《转让契据》第 3 条的解释：法院认定，该条要求新承租人 “就租赁剩余期限及合同终止后的任何占有期间，支付租金并履行租赁合同约定的其他所有义务”，其设定的是一项与原租赁合同（包括超期占有条款）项下租金挂钩的复合义务，并非创设一项独立义务，要求承租人支付未来任何协议项下的应付租金。
2. 担保条款与第 3 条义务范围一致：因第 8.1 条的担保义务系针对第 3 条约定的承租人义务，而该等义务的范围均限定于原租赁合同，故担保责任的范围亦作相同限定。在合同无明确文字约定的情况下，担保责任不得延伸适用于承租人与房东之间新的法律安排项下的义务。
3. 新协议超出担保责任范围：案涉按月租赁协议为全新的合同约定，并非依据原租赁合同超期占有条款的延续，因此该协议项下的应付租金不在担保责任范围内。法院指出，《转让契据》的核心目的是转让现有合同义务，若要求担保人对条款与原租赁合同无关的未来合同安排承担担保责任，有违商业交易的常理。
4. 条款无歧义，无需适用严格解释原则：法院依据合同解释的一般原则作出上述认定，未援引担保人责任严格解释原则（即对模糊的担保条款作有利于担保人的解释规则）。但法院同时指出，即便案涉条款存在任何歧义，适用该严格解释原则亦会指向相同的判决结果。

本案判决对所有就商业租赁合同受让事宜提供担保的主体均具有重要指导意义，其明确了以下核心规则： 

1. 即便承租人继续占有同一租赁物业，担保人亦无需当然为原租赁合同终止后新订立的租赁安排项下的义务承担担保责任。
2. 担保人的责任范围，由对担保文件及所担保的基础合同义务的合理解释确定 —— 以 “原租赁合同” 为标的的担保，其责任范围一般不得随承租人延续至新的租赁安排。
3. 法院将结合契据全文的文字表述、签订背景及合同目的解释担保条款；若担保条款存在歧义，法院将作出有利于担保人的解释。

若你就商业租赁合同项下的担保人义务存在疑问，或正涉及租赁合同受让、转让相关的法律争议，凌克斯律师事务所经验丰富的商事诉讼与租赁业务律师团队将为你提供专业的法律服务支持。 欢迎联系凌克斯律师事务所，与我们的专业律师进行一对一沟通咨询。 

本判决可能被上诉至澳大利亚高等法院，因此并非必然为最终判决。若本案后续上诉至高等法院，我们将在适当时机持续为您更新相关进展。 

本文仅为一般性信息参考，不构成任何法律意见。如需针对具体案件情况的专业法律建议，请联系本所。 

LINX LAW 律师事务所 | 商事诉讼与租赁业务 

 [1] Zhao v Kontomichalos [2026] VSCA 30