Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd v Darwin Port Corporation
[2014] NTSC 4

PARTIES:	BAKER HUGHES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

	v

	DARWIN PORT CORPORATION

TITLE OF COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:	SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:	95 of 2013 (21340904)

DELIVERED:	30 January 2014

HEARING DATES:	18 & 19 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF:	SOUTHWOOD J

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – Licence – licence to occupy – whether the purported licence to occupy is a lease – whether the licence to occupy had expired – offer and acceptance - whether licence to occupy was renewed – holding over – notice to relocate – notice to quit. 

Law of Property Act 2000 (NT) s 142, s 144

Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209, applied.

Baker v Taylor (1906) 6 SR (NSW) 500; City of Box Hill v E W Tauschke Pty Ltd [1974] VR 39; Fletcher v Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1999) 73 SASR 474; Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132; Tropical Meat Packers Pty Ltd v Schultz [2006] QSC 164, followed

Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253, referred to

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
	Plaintiff:	D Robinson SC
	Defendant:	S Brownhill

Solicitors:
	Plaintiff:	Clayton Utz
	Defendant:	Minter Ellison

Judgment category classification:	B
Judgment ID Number:	Sou1401
Number of pages:	56
IN THE SUPREME COURT 
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd v Darwin Port Corporation
[2014] NTSC 4
No. 95 of 2013 (21340904)

	BETWEEN:

	BAKER HUGHES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
	Plaintiff

	AND:

	DARWIN PORT CORPORATION
	Defendant

CORAM:	SOUTHWOOD J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 30 January 2014)

Introduction
[1]	This proceeding involves a dispute about the plaintiff’s continued occupancy of certain land forming part of East Arm Wharf in Darwin, on which the plaintiff constructed and operates a liquid mud plant (the Licensed Premises). The plaintiff uses the mud plant for mixing and supplying drilling and completion fluids and other materials to offshore oil rigs and gas platforms and ancillary purposes. The licence to occupy the Licensed Premises was granted to the plaintiff by Darwin Port Corporation under a written instrument which was executed by the parties in March 2007 (the Licence to Occupy). 
[2]	Darwin Port Corporation requires the plaintiff to vacate the Licensed Premises because the operation of the mud plant and related activities must either cease or be conducted at a Marine Supply Base which is in the process of being constructed and is to be managed by ASCO Australia Pty Ltd. There are a number of reasons why the plaintiff must vacate the Licensed Premises. First, Darwin Port Corporation wishes to free up the area which the plaintiff occupies so that the area can be used for other port purposes, including the loading of live cattle and the discharge of dry bulk products such as clinker, slag and cement. This cannot be done if the plaintiff remains in possession of the Licensed Premises. Second, it would be inefficient and expensive for ships to load all other supplies at the Marine Supply Base and then have to move to the plaintiff’s site to obtain drilling and completion fluid supplies. Time would be wasted and other equipment cannot be loaded on board while drilling and completion fluids are being pumped on board. Third, such inefficiencies and delays would increase costs and would be negatively perceived by users of the Marine Supply Base.
[3]	Darwin Port Corporation maintains that the term of the plaintiff’s Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises has expired. The plaintiff has become a tenant at will and has been served with a notice to quit the premises. 
[4]	The plaintiff maintains that it is not required to vacate the Licensed Premises until the Marine Supply Base is commissioned. The plaintiff’s licence to occupy the Licensed Premises has not expired. It has been extended and renewed. Further, under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy, Darwin Port Corporation is required to pay the plaintiff’s costs of relocating its mud plant to the Marine Supply Base.
[5]	The plaintiff seeks the following orders by way of originating motion:
1.	A declaration that the Term of the Licence will expire on:
(a)	The date upon which the Marine Supply Base at East Arm Wharf is commissioned; alternatively
(b)	30 September 2013.
2.	A declaration that by notice dated 25 June 2013 the plaintiff validly accepted the offer pursuant to clause 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy of a renewal of the licence for a period of 12 months commencing on the day after the expiry of the Term.
3.	In the alternative to orders 1 and 2:
(a)	A declaration that the plaintiff has at all material times up to and including the date of receipt by the defendant of the Renewal Notice continued in possession of the Licensed Premises (as defined in the Licence to Occupy) with the consent of the defendant.
(b)	A declaration that, by the Renewal Notice, the plaintiff validly accepted the offer pursuant to clause 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy of a renewal of the licence for a period of 12 months in accordance with its rights under s 142 of the Law of Property Act 2000 (NT).
(c)	A declaration that the period of 12 months referred to in order 3(b) commences on the day after:
(i)	The date upon which the Marine Supply Base located at East Arm Wharf is commissioned; alternatively
(ii)	30 September 2013.
4.	A declaration that Darwin Port Corporation, on or about 6 December 2012 and 4 March 2013 being a period during the Term of the Licence to Occupy or prior to renewal of the term in accordance with cl 4.4 of the licence, gave the plaintiff a notice in accordance with clause 4.5(a) of the licence that it required the plaintiff to relocate to the Marine Supply Base being an alternative site on the Land described in the licence.
5.	An order that Darwin Port Corporation is estopped from denying that its communications to the plaintiff referred to in order 4 amounted to the giving of a notice in accordance with clause 4.5(a) of the Licence to Occupy that it required the plaintiff to relocate to the Marine Supply Base being an alternative site on the Land described in the licence.
6.	An order that Darwin Port Corporation forthwith comply with its obligations under clause 4.5(b) of the Licence to Occupy and by further notice to the plaintiff:
(a)	Specify the date by which the plaintiff is required to relocate from the Licensed Premises to the alternative premises at the Marine Supply Base (being not less than 3 months from the date of the further notice);
(b)	Offer a licence of the alternative premises at the Marine Supply Base similar in accessibility, size and utility to the Licensed Premises on terms similar to the Licence to Occupy.
(c)	Specify the date on which the offer of a licence of the alternative premises at the Marine Supply Base is to be accepted; and
(d)	Specify the date on which the Licence to Occupy is determined in the event that the plaintiff does not accept the offer to enter into a licence in respect of the alternative premises at the Marine Supply Base.
Principal issues
[6]	The following are the principal issues which arise in the proceeding. First, was the Licence to Occupy a lease? Second, has the Licence to Occupy expired and, if so, when did it expire? Third, is the plaintiff holding over? Fourth, was the Licence to Occupy renewed? Fifth, did the Darwin Port Corporation give the plaintiff a notice to relocate under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy? Sixth, was the notice to quit a valid notice to quit?
The facts
[7]	The facts are as follows.
[8]	Darwin Port Corporation is the registered proprietor of the land on which the East Arm Wharf is located being Northern Territory portion 5987 from Plan S2000/206. The land includes a bunded area of 1830 square metres on the southern edge of the wharf on which the plaintiff has constructed a mud plant.
[9]	The plaintiff supplies services to the offshore oil and gas industry from East Arm Wharf. In order to carry out its business at the wharf, the plaintiff obtained rights to occupy six parcels of land at the wharf from Darwin Port Corporation. One of these sites is the Licensed Premises. In 2002 the plaintiff constructed, established and occupied a liquid mud plant on the Licensed Premises. The liquid mud plant is used by the plaintiff to mix and store drilling and completion fluids and chemicals required by the plaintiff’s customers in the performance of their offshore oil and gas operations. The cost of the construction of the mud plant was about $4.3 million. However, no written agreement to occupy the mud plant was entered into until March 2007 when the plaintiff and Darwin Port Corporation executed the Licence to Occupy. 
[10]	The parties express intention was that the grant of the Licence to Occupy only created contractual rights and did not create any proprietary right, tenancy or other estate or interest nor did it create the relationship of landlord and tenant. Clause 2 and cl 4.9 of the Licence to Occupy relevantly state:
2.	GRANT OF LICENCE
The grant of the Licence creates contractual rights only and does not create or confer on the Licensee any proprietary right, tenancy or other estate or interest (other than the rights of a licensee) over or in the Land or the Licensed Premises. [….]
4.9	RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
The parties expressly agree that it is intended that this licence shall create the relationship of Licensee and Licensor between them and they hereby state that it is not their intention to create any other relationship and, in particular, the relationship of partners, joint venturers or landlord and tenant.
[11]	However, as is discussed in par [99] below, the Licence to Occupy is a lease because it grants exclusive possession to the plaintiff of the Licensed Premises for a specified term and thereby creates a demise which will be construed as a lease.
[12]	The following additional features of the Licence to Occupy should also be noted.
(a)	The initial Term is from 1 March 2007 to 30 April 2009. Inconsistently, this is described in the Licence to Occupy as a two year term but nothing turns on this inconsistency.
(b)	‘Term’ is defined relevantly, as the latter of 30 April 2009 and the expiry of any periods of ‘renewal’ or ‘extension’ of the Licence to Occupy (cl 1.1).
(c)	There is some express recognition of holding over. Clause 2 of the Licence to Occupy states:
LICENSEE’S OBLIGATIONS
THE LICENSEE to the intent that the obligations herein created shall continue throughout the Term or any period during which the Licensee may be in occupation of the Licensed Premises HEREBY COVENANTS AND AGREES WITH THE LICENSOR as follows [emphasis added]:
(d)	Clause 4.4(a) contains an offer by Darwin Port Corporation to the plaintiff for renewal of the Licence to Occupy for a period of 12 months (Item 6 of the Schedule) commencing on the day after the date of expiry of the Term and containing identical covenants to the covenants of the Licence to Occupy.
(e)	Under cl 4.4(b) the offer of renewal is required to be accepted by the plaintiff by written notice in a specific window of time – in the period commencing (6) months and ending (3) months before the date of expiry of the Term. This requirement is expressed in mandatory language.
(f)	There is no express provision for extension of the Term in the Licence to Occupy.
(g)	Clause 4.5 is a relocation clause whereby Darwin Port Corporation can give notice to the plaintiff during the Term or prior to renewal of the Term that it requires the plaintiff to relocate to an alternative site on the Land and, in that event, Darwin Port Corporation must offer the plaintiff alternative premises on the Land and may have to reimburse the plaintiff for relocation expenses.
(h)	Clause 4.8 provides that the Licence Fee may be reviewed annually in accordance with the percentage increase in the All Groups Consumer Price Index for the City of Darwin.
[13]	As there is no mechanism for extension of the Term in the Licence to Occupy, any extension of the term of the Licence to Occupy must be made by way of collateral agreement. Such an agreement may be either an express agreement or an implied agreement created by the conduct of the parties.
[14]	The effect of cl 4.4(b) of the Licence to Occupy is that, if the plaintiff wanted to exercise the option to renew during the initial two year period of the Licence to Occupy, the plaintiff had to accept Darwin Port Corporation’s offer between 30 October 2008 and 30 January 2009. The plaintiff did not do so. Instead, after 30 January 2009 and prior to 23 February 2009 the plaintiff elected to try and negotiate an additional term of 3 to 5 years for the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises. The possibility of doing so appears to have first been raised by the plaintiff with Ms Anne Coulter, who was the Business Manager of the Darwin Port Corporation. Then on 18 March 2009, there were discussions between Mr Bruce Smith, who is the Logistics Manager – Drilling and Completion Fluids Australia of the plaintiff, and Mr Michael Nesbit, who was then the General Manager of Port Development for Darwin Port Corporation, about the possibility of the plaintiff being granted a new licence to occupy for such a term.
[15]	On 18 March 2009 Mr Smith sent Mr Nesbit an email in which he stated:
I can confirm that Baker wishes to continue its lease with the port for all of its existing facilities. We would also like to increase the lease period from 2 + 1 to a minimum of 3 + 2. In addition, we would like to increase our existing warehouse space to include the entire warehouse rather than just approx. 2/3 as it is now.
[16]	The above email contains a counter offer by the plaintiff to Darwin Port Corporation to renew all of its leases and licences, including the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises for a period of three years, with an option to renew for a further period of two years. Such a counter offer amounts to a final rejection of Darwin Port Corporation’s offer to renew the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises for 12 months, which is contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy. Further, the offer contained in cl 4.4 cannot be revived by the plaintiff changing its mind. 
[17]	Darwin Port Corporation did not accept the counter offer. On 30 March 2009, Mr Nesbit responded to Mr Smith by email as follows:
Some comments in response to your email below.
Baker Hughes currently has the following leases/licences with DPC:
1.	A licence over approximately 1,808 (sic) sq. metres of land at East Arm wharf for the operation of a drilling mud production plant. The current licence fee is $5,305 per month. The licence is exclusive, expires on April 30 2009 and can be renewed for a period of one year on similar terms to the original licence.
2.	An occupational licence of approximately 2,360 sq. metres of the East Arm Transit Shed. The current licence fee is approximately $89.75 per sq. m p.a. Our records indicate that this licence expired on 15 April 2005.
3.	An occupational licence of approximately 500 sq. metres of hardstand adjacent to the East Arm Transit Shed. The current licence fee is approximately $18.60 per sq. m p.a. Our records indicate that this licence also expired on 15 April 2005.
4.	An occupational licence of offices 3 and 4 of the DPC transportable office No. 3 on East Arm Wharf. The current licence fee is approximately $290 per office per month. Our records also indicate that this licence also expired on 15 April 2005.
As outlined below, Baker Hughes has requested the DPC provides the remainder of the Transit Shed for Baker Hughes and that the leases on all facilities be increased to (say) 3 + 2 years. However, we note the following:
•	There is an occupant in the remainder of the Transit Shed and it is not a practical option to grant that space to Baker Hughes at this time.
•	Baker Hughes is currently using approximately 1,800 sq. metres of hardstand around the Transit Shed.
•	Baker Hughes uses the space between the mud plant and the bund wall extensively for plant operations. This is approximately 1,200 sq. metres of hardstand.
•	A review of the rates for the hardstand and transit shed would appear not to have been completed since 2002.
To that end we propose:
1.	Baker Hughes request an extension of the current licence on the mud plant for the agreed renewal period of 12 months.
2.	You indicate how much extra space you require around the Transit Shed for the next 12 months.
3.	DPC obtains valuations on the Transit Shed, hardstand (around the Transit Shed and mud plant) and office space from the Australian Government Valuation Agency.
4.	The new space requirements and rates be incorporated into an Occupational Licence whose term will coincide with the extended Mud Plant Licence [emphasis added].
5.	During the next 12 months we will all work together to develop and implement a long term solution.
[18]	The effect of the above email is that Darwin Port Corporation did not accept the plaintiff’s proposal of a renewal of all of the plaintiff’s licences and leases for a term of three years with an option for a further two years. Instead, Darwin Port Corporation offered the plaintiff an extension of the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises for a period of 12 months and an occupational licence for the other areas occupied by the plaintiff at revalued rates for the same period as the extended Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises. During this 12 month period the parties were to work together to develop and implement a long term solution. 
[19]	The offer of an extension of the Licence to Occupy contained in Mr Nesbit’s email of 30 March 2009 was not an offer a renewal of the licence for 12 months, nor was it an offer of an extension for 12 months plus an option for a renewal of a further 12 months. Mr Nesbit used the word ‘extension’ in his email not ‘renewal’ and he suggested that the plaintiff request an extension. The time for the plaintiff to accept the offer of a renewal in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy had expired and in any event had been rejected by the plaintiff. The purpose of the proposed 12 months extension was to enable the parties to negotiate a long term solution, which (if achieved) would be implemented at the end of the 12 months extension. 
[20]	After Mr Nesbit sent his email of 30 March 2009, he arranged for the valuations referred to in his email to be undertaken, however, there was no immediate response from the plaintiff to his proposal and there was no further communication between the parties until after the initial two year term of the Licence to Occupy expired. The next communication between the parties seems to have occurred on 5 May 2009 when Mr Nesbit sent Mr Smith an email in which he stated that the final touches to the valuations were being completed, he would notify Mr Smith of the new rates in the next few days and adjustments to the May invoices would be made and added to the June invoices.
[21]	On 26 May 2009 Mr Nesbit sent Mr Smith an email in which he stated:
The valuations are completed and DPC is now in a position to communicate the new rates applying for the various areas of land/shed Baker Hughes is occupying. We propose the following rates.
1.	The Mud Plant: 1,830 m2 increased to $5,010.34 per month (ex GST), 3.9% increase.
2.	The Transit Shed: 2,360 m2 increased to $110 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
3.	The 500 m2 of exclusive use of hardstand increased to $55 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
4.	The 1,300 m2 non-exclusive use of hardstand beside transit shed. This will be charged at $25 per m2 p.a. (ex GST). Please note that the DPOC may increase the area to which this rate applies if it determines that a significantly larger portion of the land is consistently being used by Baker Hughes
5.	The 1,200 m2 of non-exclusive use of hardstand in front of the mud plant. This will be charged at $25 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
6.	The office space: $650 per month (ex GST) in total
The next invoice will be issued with these rates applying and will be accompanied with an additional invoice for the new rates applying from May 1 2009.
Formal advice along with Occupational Licence Agreements, substantially in the form agreed previously will be sent to you in due course.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if anything is unclear or requires elaboration.
[22]	The percentage increase in the Licence Fee for the Licensed Premises was calculated in accordance with cl 4.8 of the Licence to Occupy. This is consistent with the proposed offer of a 12 month extension of the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises. Whereas the fees for the other areas were calculated in accordance with the valuations that were undertaken in May 2009. Further, the statement in the email about sending Occupational Licence Agreements is a reference to areas other than the Licensed Premises. This email must be read in the context of the email sent on 30 March 2009.
[23]	For some reason the email sent on 26 May 2009 was resent on 28 May 2009. On 15 June 2009 Mr Smith sent the following email in reply to Mr Nesbit.
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. There are a couple of questions I have regarding the allocations.
(a)	The transit shed m2 has increased from 2,280 m2 to 2,360 m2, can you explain how this came about as nothing has been added to it so far as I am aware.
(b)	Item 5, can you please advise me how you arrived at the figure of 1,200 m2? If you could send a map or a drawing that would be great.
[24]	Mr Smith’s email did not deal with the Licensed Premises.
[25]	On 26 June 2009 Mr Smith sent a further email to Mr Nesbit asking if Mr Nesbit had looked at the queries raised in his email of 15 June 2009. He also stated that they needed to discuss the increases that Mr Nesbit was proposing because they did not appear to fall within the terms of the contract. This is a reference to the areas other than the Licensed Premises and appears to disregard the basis on which Mr Nesbit foreshadowed he was prepared to grant a licence to occupy the other areas pending a long term solution being negotiated. On the same day, an email was sent to Mr Smith advising him that Mr Nesbit was interstate but that Ms Coulter would have a look at his queries and try and respond to them. There then seems to have been a discussion between Mr Nesbit and Mr Smith about these issues. However, there is no evidence before the Court about what was discussed other than an email dated 30 June 2009 from Mr Nesbit to Mr Smith which informed Mr Smith that Darwin Port Corporation was committed to an equitable resolution to the leases and to conducting the discussions in good faith.
[26]	On 13 July 2009 Mr Smith sent Mr Nesbit the following email:
Further to our recent correspondence regarding the lease and the rental invoices, Baker would like to proceed as follows in order to facilitate payments as soon as possible to the DPA (sic).
We need to pay the monthly rentals due for the mud plant including the agreed increase as per the existing lease. We can also pay the existing rental on the offices, 500 m2 hardstand and transit shed at the old rate until such time as we can have an independent valuation completed on the properties. We do, however, disagree with the 1,200 m2 hardstand area from the bund to the wharf, this should be removed. We also disagree with the total amount of remaining hardstand area invoiced being 1,300 m2.
In order for our finance department to pay the existing invoices we will need to have either a credit note against them as per below or for the old invoices to be cancelled and new ones sent.
[The proposed invoice amounts were then set out in the email.]
[27]	This email and the subsequent payment of rent for the Licensed Premises constitutes an acceptance by the plaintiff of the offer by Darwin Port Corporation of the 12 month extension of the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises and a non-acceptance of the terms on which Darwin Port Corporation proposed to offer the plaintiff a licence to occupy the other areas on East Arm Wharf for 12 months. The acceptance of the offer to extend the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises was communicated after the term of the licence had expired. However, the offer of the 12 month extension was made before the initial term of the Licence had expired. The plaintiff’s acceptance was a retrospective acceptance of the extension. 
[28]	On 13 July 2009 Mr Nesbit responded by email to Mr Smith as follows.
Just to clarify a few terms:
I said that I felt, upon reflection, that the inclusion of all of the land between the mud plant and the bund wall was a bit excessive. DPC still believes that Baker Hughes does use some of that land on a non-exclusive basis and should pay for that use. We will propose another basis when I get back to the office next week.
We do not propose to allow another independent valuer onto East Arm. We have shown you our valuation and are prepared to discuss issues and your comments.
[29]	There was then an exchange of further emails on 13 and 15 July 2009 between Mr Nesbit and Mr Smith endeavouring to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues where no agreement had been reached. 
[30]	On the evidence before the Court, there does not appear to have been any further written communication between the parties until 24 August 2009. On that date Mr Roger Heong, who was the Real Estate Manager (Asia Pacific) for the plaintiff, sent the following email to Mr Nesbit.
I have been requested by our operations in Perth to assist in reviewing the above licences and assist moving the following outstanding matter with your good self. Our operations have reviewed closely again our overall operations in DPA (sic) and generally we would like to sign up for longer licence duration as follows:
1.	The licence for the mud plant for the new term extends from 1 March 2009 to 28 February 2010 (sic). We would like to request for this present term to be extended to 28 February 2011 and in addition a further option to extend for another two years. We propose for an addendum to the licence agreement to effect the above changes if you are agreeable and would consider the rental review mechanics that you propose. We would also like to suggest for a site lay out indicating the area and location of the Mud Plant covered in the agreement.
2.	Office and transit shed licence – we would also like to request for the duration of the licence term to be extended to match that of the Mud Plant licence i.e. 28 February 2011 and in addition a further option to extend for another two years.
3.	The remaining 500 sq. m hardstand next to the transit shed and 375 sq. m in front of the mud plant as I was informed had been agreed upon and we were awaiting the similar licence documents from DPA (sic). The requirement for the term duration and option to extend would be the same as in item 2 above.
4.	We would like for you to consider merging the licences in 2 and 3 under 1 document if possible and the site layout showing all the various locations and areas covered by the licence agreement.
We do apologise if the process has taken longer than expected but we would like for the above licences to be reflective of our commitments to DPA (sic) in relation to our operations outlook.
[31]	The statements in Mr Heong’s email about the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises constitute a further and different offer by the plaintiff to Darwin Port Corporation. The offer is in effect an offer to lease the Licensed Premises for a period of two years with an option for a further two years. The offer contemplates that, at the very latest, the parties’ arrangements would come to an end by 28 February 2013. The email shows that Mr Heong did not have a full appreciation of the history of previous offers and dealings between the parties and that the plaintiff had changed its mind about the length of the term that it required for the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises.
[32]	On 26 August 2009 Mr Nesbit responded by email to Mr Heong as follows.
Darwin Port Corporation is currently reviewing all options for servicing rig tenders on East Arm. Currently DPC has 400 rig tender calls p.a. growing in excess of 10 percent per year and likely to grow much faster in the near future. Even now the East Arm rig berth is notionally occupied to greater than 140%. Rig tenders take a total of 40% of the available East Arm Wharf space but notionally account for only less than 20% of the quay line.
Our options include relocation of the rig berth approximately 1 km to the east. As you no doubt realise this means a relocation of the mud plant.
The analytical options work will be complete by June 2010 with implementation soon thereafter.
In respect of the various leases and occupational licences DPC has with Baker Hughes, we don’t want the terms to straddle this development timetable [emphasis added].
We propose that you execute all documents with the timings therein. By 30 April 2010 (the expiry of the mud plant lease) DPC will be in a position to commit for a further term that enables the orderly development of, and transition to, a new facility at East Arm (if that is the answer).
DPC is committed to working with Baker Hughes to further develop our relationship. In order to crystallise our plans we are about to undertake a fact finding and benchmarking review of marine supply bases in the US (Port Fourchon Louisiana), Europe (Bergen, Stavanger and Aberdeen) and Singapore. We depart on September 6 and would like to visit the most complex of your facilities in those locations to understand the best practice for drilling muds and rig chemicals. Can you help us organise this?
Appreciate feedback on all issues.
[33]	Mr Nesbit’s email of 26 August 2009 amounts to a rejection of the plaintiff’s offer, confirms that the term of the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises will expire on 30 April 2010, advises the plaintiff that it may have to move from its current location because consideration was being given to the development of a marine supply base, and suggests that consideration can be given to a further term and any transitional arrangements at the end of the existing term of the Licence to Occupy.
[34]	The third last paragraph in Mr Nesbit’s email is a little ambiguous. However, in my opinion, it does not amount to notice under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. The paragraph must be read in the context of the whole of the email, including the preceding paragraph which states that Darwin Port Corporation “don’t want the terms to straddle [the] development timetable.” The email suggests that, in the event a Marine Supply Base is established, any new term will not extend beyond the completion of any development of a marine supply base. 
[35]	Further, the email is not a notice under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. The email stipulates that the term of any new licence will be governed by the development of the Marine Supply Base. The email is premised on an initial extension of the licences of 12 months only. 
[36]	At 7.48 pm on 26 August 2009 Mr Heong replied to Mr Nesbit’s email by email as follows.
1.	On your outlined expansion plans and how it affects us, I understand that Tony and Bruce would be meeting with you next week to discuss further.
2.	On the leases:
(a)	The offices and the transit shed lease – we would execute the documents provided for the lease term until 30 April 2010 and duly return to you.
(b)	The remaining 500 sqm hardstand and 375 sqm in front of the plant we shall await your documents
(c)	For the mud plant extension, we would request for similar renewal documents to be forwarded to us for execution to formally record the extension of the lease until 30 April 2010 as part of legal compliance requirement.
3.	On your proposed visit to our facilities, could you provide a summary of your visit dates to each of the locations and I will try and get hold of the respective facility manager to assist in communicating with you and facilitating the visit as the timing is getting close.
[37]	Mr Heong’s email is virtually a full acceptance of all of the matters that were proposed by Mr Nesbit in his email of 30 March 2009. The email is further acknowledgment that the term of the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises will expire on 30 April 2010. However, Mr Heong did not appreciate that documents had been provided for the office and transit shed lease and not for the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises because the terms for those other areas had completely expired in 2005 whereas an extension of the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises had been granted before its term expired.
[38]	On 28 August 2009 Mr Nesbit responded by email to Mr Heong’s email as follows.
I do not believe you require a separate document. My understanding is that Baker Hughes requests an extension of the lease for 12 months – which it has done and DPC accepts that – which it has also done.
The documents are on their way.
[39]	Mr Nesbit’s email confirms that a 12 month extension of the licence to occupy the Licensed Premises was granted from 1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010.
[40]	Mr Smith deposed in his first affidavit that he did not meet with Mr Nesbit in the week following 26 August 2009. He deposed that the email dated 30 March 2009 was the last communication he had with Mr Nesbit on the topic. However, emails appear to have been sent to and received from Mr Smith in May 2010. There is no evidence before the Court about any communications between the parties between 28 August 2009 and 27 May 2010.
[41]	As there were no further extensions of the Licence to Occupy granted on or before 30 April 2010, I find that the Term of the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises expired on 30 April 2010. From this date the plaintiff has been holding over and, in accordance with cl 2 of the Licence to Occupy, the plaintiff continues to be bound by the licensee’s covenants. This finding is based on the following facts which establish that the parties never reached an agreement about a further extension of the term of the Licence to Occupy.
[42]	On 7 May 2010, Darwin Port Corporation made a verbal request to Mr Fred Marrone to provide an updated rental valuation of the various premises occupied by the plaintiff at East Arm Wharf. He provided his valuation on or about 13 May 2010. The rental valuation for the Licensed Premises was for a term of lease of one year and the rent review method was to market. The request for a rental valuation to market for the Licensed Premises is consistent with (1) the proposal contained in Mr Nesbit’s email of 30 March 2009, (2) the term of the extended licence to occupy those premises coming to an end, and (3) consideration being given to a longer term solution. The fact that a term of one year was used to value the licences is not a basis for inferring that the parties had agreed on a further extension for one year. Any such inference is contradicted by the parties ongoing negotiations.
[43]	At 3.04 pm on 27 May 2010 Mr Nesbit sent an email to Mr Bruce Smith and Mr Heong. The email stated:
The valuations are completed and DPC is now in a position to communicate the new rates applying for the various areas of land/shed Baker Hughes is occupying. The new rates are:
1.	The Mud Plant: 1,830 m2 increased to $8,250 per month. (ex GST)
2.	The Transit Shed: 2,360 m2 increased to $120 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
3.	The 500m2 of non-exclusive use hardstand increased to $65 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
4.	The 500 m2 of non-exclusive use hardstand beside the transit shed. This will be charged at $30 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
5.	The 375 m2 non-exclusive use of the hardstand in front of the mud plant. This will be charged at $30 per m2 p.a. (ex GST)
6.	The office space: $650 per month (ex GST) in total
The June invoice will be issued with these rates applying. 
Agreements and occupational licences will be forwarded. The terms won’t change from those previously applying other than the following:
1.	The term of all agreements will be 3 years with no options
2.	Pricing will be reflected as shown above
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if anything is unclear or requires elaboration.
[44]	The email is consistent with the email sent by Mr Nesbit on 30 March 2009. By implication, the email acknowledges that the term of all leases and licences have come to an end. The email makes an express offer to the plaintiff of fresh licences to occupy all premises occupied by the plaintiff at East Arm Wharf at the ‘prices’ stated in the email for a three year term with no options for renewal.
[45]	At 6.28 pm on the same day Mr Smith replied by email stating that he would pass the information in Mr Nesbit’s email onto the “powers that be”. Mr Smith also requested to meet with Mr Nesbit in Darwin between 9 and 11 June 2010.
[46]	There is no evidence before the Court as to whether Mr Smith and Mr Nesbit met in Darwin as requested. There does not seem to have been any further communication between the parties until 23 June 2010 when Mr Heong sent an email to Mr Nesbit asking if Mr Nesbit had sent the documents to the plaintiff for review.
[47]	On 26 June 2010 Mr Nesbit sent an email to Mr Heong in which he stated:
You may have heard that DPC has been under quite intense pressure in recent months over possible copper concentrate pollution. Robert instructed me not to use the previous forms of agreement between DPC and Baker Hughes and ensure our position in respect of environmental management and responsibility for all aspects of possible pollution are covered. This is underway.
[48]	The requirement to redraft the documents to take into account environmental management issues seems to have caused delay in the parties’ negotiations. While the plaintiff remained in occupation of the Licensed Premises and other areas on East Arm Wharf and paid rent, there does not seem to have been any further communication between the parties about these matters until 2012. Mr Nesbit’s evidence is that he does not recall providing the plaintiff with any proposed lease or licence documentation for the plaintiff’s occupation of East Arm Wharf. However, negotiations about the Marine Supply Base seem to have progressed during this period. 
[49]	Mr Cadd, who is the Facilities Manager – Australasia for the plaintiff, deposed in his affidavit that in about February 2011, as a result of discussions he had with Mr Smith, he became aware that the Northern Territory and ASCO Australia Pty Ltd had entered into an agreement for the construction and operation of a dedicated Marine Supply Base at East Arm Wharf, from where all future offshore oil and gas service activities would be conducted. Darwin Port Corporation first informed the plaintiff about this possibility on 30 March 2009 when Mr Nesbit sent the email of that date to Mr Smith.  
[50]	Mr Peter Dummett, who is the General Manager – Port Development for the Darwin Port Corporation, deposed that in March 2012 he attended a meeting in Perth with Mr Ben Cadd and they had a discussion about the plaintiff’s Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises and the Marine Supply Base. Mr Cadd’s evidence is that this meeting took place on 22 March 2012. Mr Dummett stated that at the meeting Mr Cadd told him that the plaintiff might require some period during which it would continue to use their mud plant at East Arm Wharf while they made arrangements to move to the Marine Supply Base. Mr Cadd told Mr Dummett that the plaintiff was not certain it would be commercially viable for it to move to the Marine Supply Base. The issue was the subject of internal consideration by the plaintiff. Mr Dummett’s evidence was that he told Mr Cadd that the plaintiff should give Darwin Port Corporation a transition plan and Darwin Port Corporation would try and assist in the transition to the Marine Supply Base. The kinds of assistance Mr Dummett had in mind included permitting the plaintiff to remain as long as possible on the areas that it was currently occupying on East Arm Wharf and rent relief. 
[51]	Mr Cadd’s evidence was that he agreed that he discussed with Mr Dummett the need for a staged and co-ordinated transition of the plaintiff’s facilities if the plaintiff was required to move to the Marine Supply Base and that the plaintiff would require a reasonable period of time to do so. However, Mr Cadd maintains he did not say that the plaintiff wished to move to the Marine Supply Base. Mr Dummett did not ask the plaintiff to provide a formal transition plan and Mr Cadd never agreed to do so.
[52]	Mr Dummett was cross-examined about these matters. During his cross-examination he stated the following. Mr Cadd’s evidence that he did not say to Mr Dummett that Baker Hughes wanted to move to the Marine Supply Base was incorrect, as was Mr Cadd’s evidence that Mr Dummett had not made continued requests for a transition plan.
[53]	On 18 September 2012 Mr Smith attended a Darwin Port Users’ Group meeting which was addressed by Mr Peter Dummett. Mr Smith’s evidence is that Mr Dummett told the meeting that the plaintiff’s mud plant would be relocating and that the site would be returned to a general hardstand area in line with the completion of the Marine Supply Base. Mr Smith sent an email to Mr Cadd on the same day and advised him what Mr Dummett had said at the meeting. He suggested to Mr Cadd that the plaintiff should advise Darwin Port Corporation of its intentions as Mr Smith was aware the plaintiff had made no commitment to move as yet. 
[54]	The plaintiff relies on Mr Smith’s evidence about what Mr Dummett said at the Port Users’ Group meeting to try and establish that the Darwin Port Corporation gave the plaintiff notice to relocate in accordance with cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. In my opinion, this submission cannot be sustained. What is attributed to Mr Dummett does not amount to oral notice of a requirement to relocate in accordance with cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. Darwin Port Corporation did not require the plaintiff to relocate. It requires the plaintiff to vacate the Licensed Premises and to return the area to a hardstand. The terms of the further extension of the Licence to Occupy offered by Darwin Port Corporation to the plaintiff prior to the Port Users’ Group meeting make this clear.
[55]	Interestingly, Mr Smith does not say that while he was at the meeting he corrected Mr Dummett and told him that the plaintiff’s licences to occupy the various areas had not expired and the plaintiff could not be required to move, or that Mr Dummett’s alleged assertions were the first time he had heard anything like that said, or that he asked Mr Dummett to confirm that Darwin Port Corporation would be paying the plaintiff’s costs of relocating. Mr Cadd’s evidence was that Mr Smith told him in February 2011 that the Northern Territory and ASCO Australia Pty Ltd had entered into an agreement to construct and operate a Marine Supply Base from which all future offshore oil and gas service activities would be conducted.
[56]	Mr Dummett was cross-examined about what he said at the Port Users’ Group meeting. His oral evidence was as follows. Port Users’ Group meetings are informal meetings which are held to give users of the port a general presentation about what has been happening at the East Arm Wharf and to give them an opportunity to ask questions. Mr Dummett could not recall exactly what he said at the meeting. He updated those in attendance on the status of a number of projects and potential new business. He does not recall referring to Baker Hughes at all during the meeting. He may have said that all activities were unable to be carried on at East Arm Wharf after the commissioning of the Marine Supply Base. He did not recall saying that the plaintiff’s mud plant would be relocating and that the site will be returned to a hardstand area. He accepted that he may have told the meeting something along those lines. He could have said, ‘moved’ or ‘their operations would relocate’. He could have said any number of things which indicated that the plaintiff’s operations could not stay where they were. He agreed that the plaintiff had not asked to move. He agreed that he may have given an indication that the plans for the port included returning the Licensed Premises where the mud plant was located to a general hardstand area and that this would happen in line with the completion of the Marine Supply Base in the fourth quarter of 2013. Mr Dummett also said that there was no connection between what was said at the Port Users’ Group meeting and the later email he sent to Baker Hughes on 6 December 2012.
[57]	On 24 September 2012, Mr Dummett sent Mr Cadd, as an attachment to an email, a draft lease for his consideration and comment. Mr Dummett’s evidence in re-examination was that the draft lease is contained at pages 106 to 134 of Exhibit P1. Mr Dummett’s evidence was that the draft lease was drafted to expire on 30 September 2013. During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett said that at the time he sent this email he was under the belief that the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises had expired. The lease that was sent to Mr Cadd was a new lease. He said that it was quite apparent that there were a number of the areas that the plaintiff occupied and it had operated under a number of leases. The lease which was sent to Mr Cadd on 24 September 2012 was “about pulling all of those agreements under one document”. Thus a new lease was sent to Mr Cadd. Mr Cadd’s evidence was that the draft lease sought to consolidate all of the sites occupied by the plaintiff into a single lease document. There is no dispute between the parties about this fact. However, the draft lease contained neither a commencement nor completion date.
[58]	On 15 October 2012 Mr Dummett sent an email to Mr Cadd asking when Darwin Port Corporation could expect a response to the draft lease.
[59]	On 15 November 2012 Mr Cadd sent an email to Mr Sandeep Choksy, who is a legal and compliance officer of the plaintiff. In the email Mr Cadd stated:
Could you please review the attached lease for the Darwin Mud Plant?
We are being forced to shut our operations there as of Oct 1 2013 so the lease needs to consider if we can operate to that point in the existing facility and any make good obligations that are to be performed after that date are not incurring leasing costs at that time as the closure is not a BH decision.
We are being forced to relocate to a new Marine Supply Base that is being constructed or close operations. At this point closure is the likely outcome given the volume of work.
[60]	Five minutes after Mr Cadd sent the above email to Mr Choksy, he sent the following email to Mr Dummett:
I apologise for the delays as they have indeed been lengthy.
I have forwarded for review your document as it is a different format and document to previous licence agreements. As soon as it is reviewed I shall have it signed and returned.
I am making an assumption, as we are indeed being forced to cease operations on the wharf, that our lease will be up to 31 August, and any make good operations after that day will not be incurring lease rental charges as it is no longer an operational facility?
Could you please confirm.
[61]	 On 6 December 2012 Mr Dummett sent an email in reply to Mr Cadd which stated:
As previously advised, under the agreement between the NT Government and ASCO, all offshore oil and gas support operations are to cease at EAW once the Marine Supply base is commissioned on 1 October 2013.
As a result DPC are able to offer a lease up to 30 September 2013. DPC’s position post that date will be as follows:
•	Should Baker Hughes take up the option to move into the MSB rental charges will cease from 30 Sep 13.
•	If this is the case the tank area will need to be made good and shed cleared by 31 Dec 13.
•	If 31 Dec deadline is not met rental charges will be reinstated effective 1 Oct 13.
•	If Baker Hughes decides not to move to MSB rental charges will continue until such time as the area is made good to the satisfaction of DPC.
[62]	The plaintiff relies on this email as further notice, under cl 4.5(a) of the Licence to Occupy, that Darwin Port Corporation required the plaintiff to relocate. Once again, in my opinion, this submission cannot be sustained. If anything, the email is notice of when the plaintiff must quit all of the sites it occupies. At this time the Term of the Licence to Occupy had expired and the plaintiff was holding over. There was a tenancy at will terminable on one month’s notice. The email states that all operations at East Arm Wharf are to cease by 1 October. The email then contains a number of offers to the plaintiff which are contingent on what the plaintiff chooses to do.
[63]	Further, the email does not grant an extension of the Licence to Occupy until 30 September 2013. It offers a fresh lease of all sites occupied by the plaintiff until 30 September 2013. The offer is never accepted by the plaintiff. 
[64]	During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett gave evidence that the lease referred to in the email dated 6 December 2012 was a new lease. It may be inferred from the email trail that the lease which is being referred to is the lease which Mr Dummett sent to Mr Cadd on 24 September 2012. He said that prior to this the plaintiff was not operating under a lease or a licence. This was an opportunity to pool all of the properties together under one lease to take the plaintiff up to 30 September 2013. As at 6 December 2012, Mr Dummett’s understanding was that the original Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises had expired. He was of this opinion because, not long after he started at the port, his Chief Executive brought to his attention that a number of leases or licences had expired and suggested to him that one of his priorities was to bring those into line, adding new licences which were to be negotiated and arranged.
[65]	During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett was asked by Senior Counsel for the plaintiff if the statement, “As previously advised”, in Mr Dummett’s email dated 6 December 2012 was a reference to what he had said at the Port Users’ Group on 18 September 2012. Mr Dummett stated, “No, that was a reference to discussions I had with Ben Cadd both face to face and over the telephone.”
[66]	Mr Dummett gave evidence that he spoke to Mr Cadd a few times in 2012 and 2013 and on each occasion he raised the finalisation of the 2012 draft lease and on each occasion Mr Cadd told him that the draft lease was with his boss for consideration, his boss was travelling regularly and he was having difficulty finding time to finalise the matter. Mr Cadd’s evidence is that he never received a response from Mr Sandeep Choksy. As matters transpired, the draft lease was never executed by the plaintiff.
[67]	On 11 February 2013 Mr Stewart Mason, who is the Operations Manager – Drilling and Completion Fluids for the plaintiff, sent Mr Dummett the following email:
Could you please advise if DPC will reimburse Baker Hughes, as per the original signed lease, for all costs associated to relocate to the new site?
I have attached the lease with applicable pages being 18 & 19 Sect 4.5 a, b and d (3).
[68]	During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett said he thought that the plaintiff was “having a go” when Mr Mason sent this email. He said he did not carefully consider whether the request made in this email was a tenable view. His position was that the plaintiff was operating “outside of a lease”. Mr Mason’s email referred to a lease that had expired and was of no concern to him. The plaintiff sent an email which asked a question which referred to a clause in an expired lease. Mr Dummett had already had discussions with the plaintiff about a new lease, which had been provided to the plaintiff, and Darwin Port Corporation was waiting on a response to the proposed new lease. He thought the question was an unreasonable question in the circumstances. In my opinion, Mr Dummett was correct in adopting this position. The email completely disregards the history of the dealings between the parties which is set out above.
[69]	On 12 February 2013 Mr Mason sent Mr Dummett a further email in which he stated:
If Baker Hughes moves to the new site we will need to do so in a cost effective way and split the costs over two calendar years. Our plan would be to set up the new site in two phases and hence split the costs between 2013 and 2014.
In order to do so we need to know where we stand on our current lease options. Do you see any issues if we continue paying rental charges in 2014 with a commitment to be off the site by 2014/15?
[70]	The above email appears to be inconsistent with the email that Mr Mason sent on 11 February 2013 and arguably amounts to some acknowledgement by the plaintiff that it was responsible for paying its costs of moving to the Marine Supply Base.
[71]	At 3.35 pm on 4 March 2013 Mr Dummett replied by email to Mr Mason’s email of 11 February 2013. He stated:
Apologies for the delay in responding, however, we have been awaiting legal advice in order to confirm our position on the matter.
That advice has now been received and I am advised that the first licence was for an area of 1830 sqm, and expired on 30 April 2009. There was one option to renew for 12 months, however, rather than renewing that licence DPC and Baker Hughes entered into a new licence (attached).
The second licence was for an area of 5,360 sqm. It would appear that a new licence was issued because the area was different to the first. The second licence expired on 30 April 2010. Under the second licence:
•	There was no option to renew
•	There is no relocation clause
•	DPC may serve notice on BH any time to vacate within 3 months
•	On termination, BH are required to remove any improvements and the area is to be left in a condition to the satisfaction of DPC including “… reinstating any damage by (sic) the licensed areas” (clause 18).
On this basis, DPC maintains the position that:
•	BH is not relocating under the first licence (clause 4.5) and DPC has no obligation as to costs under the first licence
•	BH is holding over under the second licence and DPC can terminate by giving three months’ notice
•	A make good obligation exists under clause 18 of the second licence.
DPC would be happy to discuss this matter with you in further detail at an appropriate time.
[72]	While it is correct to say that Darwin Port Corporation is not under an obligation to pay for the relocation of the plaintiff under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises, or otherwise, the legal advice which Mr Dummett has set out in his email is plainly wrong. The advice does not reflect the dealings between the parties and the licence which was attached to Mr Dummett’s email of 4 March 2013 did not relate to the Licensed Premises.
[73]	At 3.45 pm on 4 March 2013 Mr Dummett replied by email to Mr Mason’s email of 12 February 2013. He stated:
Under the terms of the agreement between ASCO and the Northern Territory Government for the management of the Marine Supply Base, all offshore oil and gas support activities must relocate to the facility once it is commissioned. The agreed commissioning date for the facility is 1 October 2013.
On the basis of this agreement, unless ASCO are unable to provide Baker Hughes with a suitable area to undertake its activities, DPC is not permitted to allow Baker Hughes to continue to operate in its current location.
[74]	The plaintiff relies on this email, in conjunction with the emails dated 6 December 2013 and 3 April 2013, to establish that the term of the Licence to Occupy was extended to 30 September 2013. There is no basis for this assertion. The email simply states that Darwin Port Corporation cannot permit the plaintiff to remain in occupation beyond 30 September 2013. In other words the tenancy at will cannot continue beyond that date.
[75]	On Thursday 7 March 2013 Mr Dummett met with Mr Mason and Mr Small. Neither Mr Dummett nor Mr Mason gave any evidence about this meeting and Mr Small did not give any evidence at all.
[76]	On 11 March 2013 Mr Mason sent an email to Mr Dummett in which he stated:
Firstly, thanks for your time on Thursday to meet with Glenn Small and myself.
As we discussed during the meeting Baker Hughes are committed to Darwin and we have had a presence on the Darwin Wharf for over 15 years. We have invested heavily in the area over the years and have an excellent team of local workers who have always delivered a first class service to our customers.
The relocation will be at a significant cost to Baker Hughes and without firm information on future drilling operations out of Darwin it will be a hard sell to get regional management to approve the relocation. My first pass of the business case was not viewed favourably by the Regional team and in order to go back and get a positive outcome I need support from the DPC.
We need to minimise any CAPEX in 2013 and therefore we plan to move to the new site in two phases.
1.	Phase one would consist of the transfer of bulk load out of silos and associated cutting/mixing equipment to enable both bulk product (Barite/Gel) and liquid brine to be delivered to offshore vessels by October 1 2013. A small hardstand and temporary bund would be suitable for this purpose. We would utilise ASCO’s warehouse at the new site for the majority of 2014 while also having access to 50% of our current warehouse space for the majority of 2014. The LMP staff will be based at the current site from October 1 until June 31 2014 with a move into the new office space at the new site ~July 1 2014. We would also have a temporary set up at the new site to ensure our employees were working in safe and satisfactory conditions.
2.	Phase two would involve the building of a permanent bunded area and transfer of all remaining tanks and assets to new LMP. As we have over 1.4 million litres of synthetic based mud being stored in these tanks you will appreciate that this will not be a simple process. We would also commence building a warehouse at the new site which would be completed in Q4 2014.
With regards the support that we will need to get the relocation approved I am asking for the following to be considered by the DPC:
•	Rental payments will cease for the current DPC site as at December 31 2012 (sic).
•	No rent will be paid for the first 12 months at the new location i.e. rent would commence on 1 January 2015.
•	The new site to be provided with a bitumen surface as opposed to bare earth.
•	With regards the current LMP Baker Hughes will take the bund wall down and leave the cement pad as is. This will be a very useful lay down area for the DPC and should not impede truck movements around the vessel load out area.
•	Have the ability to utilise any DPC assets/equipment (cranes, trucks, etc.) during the relocation to minimise our costs.
I feel the above requests are not unreasonable considering the significant costs we will be faced with when relocating coupled with our commitment to agree to a 10 year lease with ASCO/DPC.
As I mentioned on Thursday I would like to present an amended business case to my management within the next 10 days and would greatly appreciate a prompt response.
[77]	On 3 April 2013 Mr Dummett replied by email to Mr Mason as follows.
Apologies for the delay in responding however there was much to be considered and a number of parties were required to provide input.
The primary focus of the Darwin Port Corporation (DPC) is that a full suite of services is available to the offshore industry from the Marine Supply Base from its commissioning date in Q4 this year. This is to avoid vessels being required to call both at the MSB and EAW during replenishment calls to Darwin. In view of the long standing service provided by Baker Hughes to the Darwin offshore industry it is DPC’s preference that you take up the option of moving to the MSB. We do understand that Baker Hughes may not have the appetite to invest in the future under the present environment however that is a commercial decision that needs to be made by Baker Hughes. DPC will assist where it can however we also have commercial obligations that need to be adhered to.
Baker Hughes requirements at the MSB need to be discussed with ASCO as they are contracted to manage the facility and have responsibility for all commercial arrangements with stakeholders at that site.
With regard to the continued use of some facilities at EAW, DPC have no issues with Baker Hughes maintaining a presence during the transitional period while setting up at the new site. Arrangements will be on commercial terms however, as previously stated, we would consider rental relief in order to avoid Baker Hughes having to pay for two sites during the transitional period. In order to determine how this will work we would need a more comprehensive transfer plan detailing the movement of materials and people from EAW to MSB. This plan should include but not be limited to:
•	The LMP – how much of the facility will need to be maintained at EAW and for how long?
•	The storage shed – if you intend to take on the storage shed at the MSB why do you still require 50% of the shed at EAW?
•	The hardstand areas adjacent to the storage shed; and
•	The office space and laboratory.
Regarding the make good requirements for the present LMP I suggest that we undertake a joint inspection of the site. This will give DPC Management a much better understanding of what you are proposing before a final decision is made.
Unfortunately DPC does not own cranes or trucks that would be suitable to move your equipment therefore we are not in a position to be able to assist in this regard.
[78]	The plaintiff relies on this email as another email which establishes that Darwin Port Corporation extended the term of the Licence to Occupy to 30 September 2013. There is no basis for this assertion.
[79]	On 15 May 2013 there was a meeting at the plaintiff’s offices in Perth between Mr Dummett, Ms Melissa Law, the Managing Director of the plaintiff, and Mr Martin Ekundayo, who was the Legal and Compliance Director of the plaintiff. Ms Law deposed in her affidavit that at the meeting she told Mr Dummett that the Licence to Occupy the mud plant, which was entered into in 2007, was the only agreement which governed the plaintiff’s occupation of the premises on which the mud plant was located and that Darwin Port Corporation was responsible for the costs of relocating the facility to the Marine Supply Base once it was commissioned. She deposed that Mr Dummett said that he had reconsidered the matter and now accepted that the Licence to Occupy the mud plant did govern the right and obligations of the plaintiff and the Darwin Port Corporation and that it had not been superseded by any other written agreement. However, he said that the Darwin Port Corporation believed that the Term of the licence expired on 30 April 2009 and that the plaintiff had been holding over under that agreement.
[80]	Mr Dummett deposed that he told Ms Law and Mr Ekundayo that he was not prepared to discuss the terms of the Licence to Occupy with them at that meeting and that they should put their views in writing so Mr Dummett could seek advice from Darwin Port Corporation’s legal team. During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett gave the following evidence about this meeting. His recollection was that Ms Law wanted to meet him in Darwin. As it turned out, Mr Dummett was in Perth, so he arranged to meet at her office in Perth. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the situation in general. Mr Dummett disagreed with the conversation as relayed by Ms Law. He does not recall Ms Law or Mr Ekundayo informing him that the plaintiff maintained that the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises was the only agreement which governed the occupation of the liquid mud plant. Mr Dummett’s recollection of the meeting was that it was very short and sharp. He did not have any documents with him that he could refer to and he was not prepared to get into a discussion with them. Once Ms Law and Mr Ekundayo started condescending into detail he cut the conversation short. Mr Dummett cannot recall if Ms Law or Mr Ekundayo said that the Darwin Port Corporation was responsible for the costs of relocating the mud plant to the Marine Supply Base. Mr Dummett did not say that he had reconsidered the matter and he now accepted that the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises governed the matter or that it had not been superseded by any other written document. Mr Dummett’s recollection was that he suggested they should put their views in writing and the Darwin Port Corporation would consider their position.
[81]	On 25 June 2013 Ms Law and others sent a letter to Mr Dummett which, among other things, stated:
1.	Baker Hughes has conducted business operations servicing the oil and gas industry from East Arm Wharf for over 10 years.
2.	The key aspect of those operations is the storage and use of the liquid mud plant located within the bunded area on the southern edge of the wharf.
3.	Baker Hughes has operated that area pursuant to a document entitled “Licence to Occupy” entered into between Baker Hughes and DPC in or about March 2007.
4.	At our meeting:
(a)	you accepted that the Licence to Occupy governs the rights and obligations of Baker Hughes and DPC and has not been superseded by any other written agreement; and
(b)	you stated that DPC believes the Term of the Licence to Occupy expired on 30 April 2009 and thereafter DPC has been ‘holding over’ under that agreement.
5.	We understand that by agreement between DPC, the Northern Territory and Shore/ASCO, DPC has made land available at East Arm Port (sic) for the construction and operation of a Marine Supply Base (MSB).
6.	We are generally aware from previous DPC correspondence and briefings from Baker Hughes management that:
(a)	The MSB will be managed by ShoreASCO;
(b)	The MSB is expected to be commissioned on about 1 October 2013;
(c)	The purpose of the MSB is to provide a dedicated full suite of services to the oil and gas industry; and
(d)	DPC and the Northern Territory have agreed that all offshore oil and gas support activities (including those supplied by Baker Hughes) must be operated within the MSB once it is commissioned.
7.	In this context, DPC has informed Baker Hughes (including by emails dated 6 December 2012, 4 March 2013 and 3 April 2013) that:
(a)	Baker Hughes can continue to occupy the site under the current arrangement until 30 September 2013 or such later date on which the MSB is commissioned;
(b)	Baker Hughes cannot continue to conduct the business operations at the site after 30 September 2013 or such later date on which the MSB is commissioned and will need to negotiate with Shore ASCO if it wished to relocate and conducts its business operations from within the MSB; and
(c)	DPC considers it has no obligation to Baker Hughes for the costs of such relocation because the terms of the Licence to Occupy expired on 30 April 2009 and DPC’s obligations in relation to alternative premises came to an end at that time.
8.	As we mentioned during our meeting, Baker Hughes takes a different view of matters.
9.	It is common ground that the Licence to Occupy governs the rights and obligations between Baker Hughes and DPC in relation to the site.
10.	The Term of the Licence to Occupy runs from the Commencement date (1 March 2007) to the later of:
(a)	The Expiry date (30 April 2009); and
(b)	The expiry of any periods of renewal or extension of the Licence.
11.	As you are aware, Baker Hughes has not yet exercised its right to renew the Licence to Occupy for a period of 12 months.
12.	The Licence to Occupy does not contemplate a ‘holding over’ as that concept is ordinarily understood.
13.	Rather the licence to occupy makes a distinction between periods of renewal and extension. The term of the Licence to Occupy has been extended by agreement since 30 April 2009 and continues to bind the parties. This is consistent with the definition of Licence which includes all subsequent changes, departures, amendments, variations, waivers and modifications.
14.	Having regard to the matters at paragraph 7 above, the parties have agreed to further extend the Term of the Licence to Occupy to 30 September 2013 or such later date on which the MSB is commissioned. The term will not expire until that time.
15.	Pursuant to clause 4.4 and item 6 of the Schedule to the Licence to Occupy, DPC has offered Baker Hughes a renewal of the Licence to Occupy for a period of 12 months commencing on the day after the date of expiry of the Term. Baker Hughes hereby gives notice that it accepts the offer of the renewed term. Please take this as notice of acceptance of the offer within the meaning of clause 4.4(b) of the Licence to Occupy.
16.	Further, Baker Hughes takes the matters at paragraph 7 above to constitute notice given by DPC under clause 4.5(a) of the Licence to Occupy prior to the renewal of the Term that it requires Baker Hughes to relocate to the MSB, being an alternative site on the Land, upon the commissioning of that facility.
17.	Baker Hughes hereby requests that DPC comply with the obligations under clause 4.5(b) of the Licence to Occupy and submit an offer of occupation of the alternative site for consideration.
We would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter as confirmation of receipt of the notice given in paragraph 15 above and provide your response to paragraph 17 above by the close of business on Friday 5 July 2013.
[82]	The plaintiff relies on this email to establish that the plaintiff accepted the offer contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy. The plaintiff contends that by their conduct the parties had extended the Licence to Occupy from year to year since 2009. The last such extension was in April of 2011. The parties had then extended the Licence to Occupy until 30 September 2013, so that, but for the acceptance of the offer of renewal, the Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises would have expired on 30 September 2013. However, as a result of the email dated 25 June 2013, the Licence to Occupy had been renewed until 30 September 2014. In my opinion, this submission cannot be sustained. The plaintiff rejected the offer contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy and the offer cannot now be revived. The only offer ever accepted by the plaintiff was the offer of the 12 months extension to 30 April 2010. The Licence to Occupy then expired. Even the email of 25 June 2013 does not purport to accept any offer to extend the Licence to Occupy until 30 September 2013. 
[83]	Ms Law’s email is plainly wrong in a number of respects. First, the plaintiff elected not to accept Darwin Port Corporation’s offer of a renewal, instead the plaintiff counter offered, seeking a new term of 3 years plus an option for two years. Consequently, the plaintiff rejected Darwin Port Corporation’s offer of renewal. Second, any extension of the licence must be by way of collateral agreement. The Licence to Occupy the Licensed Premises was only extended once by collateral agreement and that was for a period of 12 months commencing on 1 May 2009. The purpose of the extension was to enable the parties to consider the plaintiff’s counter offer and negotiate a longer term solution.  Third, the parties were in the process of negotiating a new licence to occupy the premises but those negotiations remained unresolved at the time Ms Law’s letter was sent. The negotiations never resulted in a concluded agreement. Fourth, the plaintiff never accepted the three year lease that was offered by Darwin Port Corporation. The offer made by Darwin Port Corporation in this regard expressly stated that the lease would not contain an option. 
[84]	Oddly, Ms Law relies on the documents/emails she refers to in par 7 of her letter to constitute both an extension of the term of the Licence to Occupy and a notice to relocate, so that any one reading the letter is being asked to accept that Darwin Port Corporation extended the term of the lease with the consequence of agreeing to pay for the relocation of the plaintiff to the Marine Supply Base.  Such a contention is unreasonable.
[85]	Mr Dummett gave evidence that the Darwin Port Corporation has never intended to issue the plaintiff with a relocation notice under cl 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett gave the following evidence about the contents of Ms Law’s letter dated 25 June 2013. Mr Dummett said the agreement at the meeting was that the plaintiff would put its position in writing and Darwin Port Corporation would refer the plaintiff’s position to its legal practitioners. His position at the time of the meeting was that the Licence to Occupy had expired. The plaintiff was asking for reimbursement from an expired lease. He thought the plaintiff was “having a go”.
[86]	In July 2013 Mr Dummett met with Mr Mason at the Licensed Premises. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Darwin Port Corporation’s requirements for the plaintiff to make good the Licensed Premises upon its vacation. Mr Mason asked Mr Dummett what was required. Mr Dummett told Mr Mason that Darwin Port Corporation would consider the site made good if the ground was levelled, and the pipework and running to the shoreline was capped. However, he subsequently informed Mr Smith that all pipe work would have to be removed. During this meeting Mr Dummett again asked Mr Mason for a transition plan. 
[87]	On 23 July 2013, Ms Law and Mr Ekundayo sent a letter to Mr Dummett which, among other things, stated:
We note that we are yet to receive DPC’s offer for occupation of an alternative site at the MSB which was raised at paragraph 17 of our letter. You will appreciate that the matter needs to be progressed expeditiously given the anticipated commissioning date of that facility. Could you please let us know when DPC expects to be in a position to respond?
In the meantime, we hereby inform you that we have received a proposal to sub-lease from ASCO Australia Pty Ltd (ASCO), which sets out terms on which Baker Hughes is invited to make an offer to sub-lease premises within the MSB. Baker Hughes will be happy to provide a copy of the proposal to Sub-Lease to the DPC as it may assist DPC to procure and formulate an offer to Baker Hughes for occupation of the alternative site.
We confirm that DPC’s obligation under clause 4.5(b) of the Licence to Occupy is to submit to Baker Hughes an offer of alternative site “on terms similar” to the Licence to Occupy. You will note that the terms set out in the Proposals to Sub-Lease are dissimilar in material respects to the terms under the Licence to Occupy. This will need to be addressed in any offer which DPC may wish to procure and formulate in conjunction with ASCO.
As you will gather from the above, we have no difficulty with DPC discussing the Proposal to Sub-Lease and the offer of an alternative site with ASCO.
[88]	A further letter seeking a response from Darwin Port Corporation to the plaintiff’s assertions in its letter dated 25 June 2013 was sent by Ms Law and Mr Ekundayo to Mr Dummett on 3 August 2013. On 21 August 2013, Mr Dummett responded by letter as follows:
Letter dated 25 June 2013
It does appear that Baker Hughes has occupied an area of 1,830 square metres at East Arm, known as the mud plant area (Licensed Area) pursuant to a document entitled “Licence to Occupy” entered into between Baker Hughes and the DPC in or about March 2007 for a term of two years and two months and expiring on 30 April 2009 (Licence).
Under clause 4.4 of the Licence there was an option to renew for 12 months. Baker Hughes did not exercise this option within the period set out in that clause prior to the expiry of the licence on 30 April 2009.
While I agree that the licence does not include a holding over clause, I reject the assertion in paragraph 13 of your letter that the Licence has been extended by agreement. There was no such agreement upon expiry of the Licence. Rather, Baker Hughes has been occupying the area under the Licence subject to a periodic tenancy.
Because the term of the licence expired on 30 April 2009, Baker Hughes is not now able to exercise the right to renew under clause 4.4.
Baker Hughes has continued to occupy the Licence Area, and DPC has given notice that the periodic tenancy will expire on 30 September 2013 or such later date as discussed below.
I also reject your assertion that the various correspondences constitute a relocation notice for the purposes of clause 4.5. There is no reasonable basis on which the correspondence could be interpreted that way. The correspondence constitutes notice of termination of the period of tenancy. That period expires on 30 September 2013, and in that case, there is no need for DPC to give a relocation notice.
Notwithstanding the offer made below please confirm as a matter of urgency that Baker Hughes is currently working towards vacation of the Licensed Area by 30 September 2013.
Letter dated 23 July 2013
I note from this letter that you have received an offer from ASCO Australia Pty Ltd (ASCO) setting out the terms on which Baker Hughes may sublease premises within the MSB.
DPC has no obligation under the Licence to offer Baker Hughes an alternative site. Any terms and conditions of a sub-lease with ASCO must be directly negotiated and agreed between Baker Hughes and ASCO.
Possible extension
Notwithstanding Baker Hughes obligations to vacate the Licensed Premises by 30 September 2013, I understand you may require time to remove your operations and all improvements from the Licensed Area. By way of compromise, DPC is prepared to allow Baker Hughes to remain on the Licensed Area for a further period to be agreed (Extended Period), upon receipt by the DPC of Baker Hughes’ transition plan, in order for Baker Hughes to comply with its obligations under the licence.
If this occurs, Baker Hughes may occupy the Licensed Area for an Extended Period on the terms and conditions of the Licence, except that DPC may waive the requirement to pay the Licence Fee during the extended period.
Please advise if Baker Hughes intends to accept the offer to remain on the Licenced Area as set out above and I will arrange the relevant documentation to be prepared for negotiation and execution by the parties.
[89]	The letter from Mr Dummett reasonably accurately reflects the dealings between the parties.
[90]	During his cross-examination, Mr Dummett conceded that in his letter dated 21 August 2013 he did not correct any of the erroneous statements that he maintained Ms Law had made in her letter dated 25 June 2013. However, I do not think that anything at all turns on this. The letter of 21 August 2013 clearly sets out the Darwin Port Corporation’s position. In circumstances where the plaintiff and the Darwin Port Corporation would still be dealing with each other for some time in the future, there was no need for Mr Dummett to go further in his letter.
[91]	On 19 September 2013 Mr Dummett attended a meeting of Darwin Port Corporation’s Project Reference Group at which he was advised by Mr Phil Vivian, a consultant who is overseeing aspects of the Marine Supply Base project that the latest advice he had received from the construction contractor gave a construction completion date for the Marine Supply Base of 15 December 2013.
[92]	On 1 November 2013 or thereabouts Darwin Port Corporation served a notice to quit premises on the plaintiff. The operative part of the notice stated:
1.	The tenancy of the Premises determinable at the will of the parties in writing pursuant to s 144 of the Law of Property Act (NT) is hereby terminated with effect from midnight on 1 March 2014.
2.	You are hereby required to vacate and return the Premises to the possession of the Darwin Port Corporation by midnight on 1 March 2014, and to have complied with your obligations in respect of the tenancy, including those found within the terms of the Licence.
[93]	The plaintiff remains in occupation of the Licensed Premises.
The submissions of the plaintiff
[94]	The plaintiff acknowledges that the Licence to Occupy is a lease. However, it maintains that the Licence to Occupy and the conduct of the parties must be interpreted in the full context of their relationship which is primarily a contractual relationship. So far as possible the contractual principles, which apply in continuing commercial contractual relationships, should apply in this case. In particular, the plaintiff submits that the conduct of the parties should not be subject to a rigorous analysis of offer and acceptance. The plaintiff further acknowledges that, in order for it to succeed in this proceeding, it must establish that the Licence to Occupy has been extended.
[95]	The plaintiff submits that the Licence to Occupy was extended to 30 September 2013. Further, on 25 June 2013, which was during the extended Term of the Licence to Occupy, the plaintiff accepted the offer contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy. The effect of this is that the term of the renewed lease or licence extends until 30 September 2014. Further still, as a result of what Mr Dummett said at the Port Users’ Group meeting on 18 September 2012 and the emails dated 6 December 2012, 4 March 2014 and 3 April 2013, Darwin Port Corporation gave the plaintiff notice to relocate in accordance with cl 4.5(a) of the Licence to Occupy.
[96]	As to the extension of the Licence to Occupy, the plaintiff relies on the 12 months extension which the parties expressly agreed to in 2009 and thereafter what it says was the conduct of the parties in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The conduct relied on is (1) the plaintiff remaining in possession of the Licensed Premises, (2) rent being calculated on an annual basis, (3) the payment of rent by the plaintiff and (4) the informal manner in which the parties had conducted themselves since 2002. In addition to these extensions the plaintiff submits that by way of the emails dated 6 December 2012, 4 March 2014 and 3 April 2013, Darwin Port Corporation granted the plaintiff an extension until 30 September 2013 or, alternatively, the commissioning of the Marine Supply Base.
[97]	Alternatively, the plaintiff says that any holding over constitutes an extension of the Licence to Occupy. In accordance with s 142 of the Law of Property Act (NT), the plaintiff had a right to accept the offer of a renewal of the licence for 12 months under cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy. The Licence to Occupy did not exclude the operation of s 142 of the Law of Property Act (NT). 
[98]	The plaintiff submits that the statements made by Mr Dummett at the Port Users’ Group meeting and in the emails dated 6 December 2012, 4 March 2014 and 3 April 2013, amount to Darwin Port Corporation giving the plaintiff a notice in accordance with cl 4.5(a) of the Licence to Occupy. The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the balance of clause 4.5 and Darwin Port Corporation is required to pay the relocation expenses of the plaintiff.
Is the Licence to Occupy a lease?
[99]	As I have stated in par [11] above, I have concluded that the Licence to Occupy is a lease and that the plaintiff and Darwin Port Corporation are in a relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the Licensed Premises. My conclusion is supported by the following additional matters. The Licence to Occupy acknowledges that the plaintiff has made a significant investment in the plant that is on the Licensed Premises. The liquid mud plant is used exclusively by the plaintiff in its business operations. The Licence to Occupy provides Darwin Port Corporation with a right of re-entry on breach of any covenant by the plaintiff just as a lessor would.
[100]	Consequently, the Licence to Occupy is to be construed cognizant of the common law principles and the consequences relating to rights of exclusive occupation of land. As has been established for some time now, these principles are largely contractual in any event.
Has the Licence to Occupy Expired?
[101]	In my opinion, the Licence to Occupy has expired. The plaintiff rejected the offer contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy and the plaintiff cannot subsequently purport to revive the offer at a later time. The subsequent offer made by Darwin Port Corporation of an extension for 12 months was not an extension of the Licence to Occupy which included the offer of a renewal for 12 months. The parties agreed to an extension of 12 months from 1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010. Thereafter, no further extension was agreed and the plaintiff was holding over. Clause 2 of the Licence to Occupy recognises that there may be a holding over. The subsequent conduct of the parties is consistent with there being a holding over.
[102]	The plaintiff’s case is based on a very selective consideration of what was occurring and ignores the actual dealings between the parties which is contained in the emails that they exchanged. On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the Licence to Occupy was extended to 30 April 2013. For there to be an extension of the Licence to Occupy there must be a collateral agreement between the parties. The emails exchanged between the parties establish that there was no such agreement beyond 30 April 2010.
[103]	Darwin Port Corporation did not extend the Licence to Occupy to 30 September 2013. After the Licence to Occupy expired there was a tenancy at will which is terminable on one month’s notice. Darwin Port Corporation offered the plaintiff a three year lease or alternatively a lease until 30 September 2013. This offer was not accepted by the plaintiff. Since 2009 Darwin Port Corporation has indicated to the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s occupation of the Licensed Premises would have to cease if and when a marine supply base was commissioned.

Was the Licence to Occupy renewed?
[104]	In my opinion, the Licence to Occupy was not renewed. Rather than accept the offer contained in cl 4.4, the plaintiff elected to make a counter offer. The effect of the counter-offer was to reject the offer contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy. The subsequent offer of a 12 months extension of the Licence to Occupy by Darwin Port Corporation to the plaintiff did not revive the offer of a 12 months renewal of the Licence to Occupy contained in cl 4.4 of the Licence to Occupy and did not otherwise include an offer of a further renewal of 12 months. Even if the extension of the Licence to Occupy for 12 months to 30 April 2010 did include an offer of a renewal of 12 months, the offer was not accepted within the time stipulated within cl 4.4 and the Licence to Occupy expired on 30 April 2010.
[105]	Paragraph 15 of the letter of 25 June 2013 did not give rise to a renewal of the Licence to Occupy for the following reasons. First, the plaintiff finally rejected the offer by its counter-offer and a later acceptance does not revive a rejected offer. Secondly, the Licence to Occupy had expired by 30 April 2010 so the offer in cl 4.4 could no longer be accepted. Thirdly, s 142 of the Law of Property Act (NT) does not assist. Section 142 of the Act does not revive an offer which has otherwise been extinguished prior to a period of holding over commencing. A rejected offer is killed or destroyed upon the rejection being communicated to the offeror. Alternatively, I accept Darwin Port Corporation’s submission that the effect of s 142(3) of the Act is that an option to renew a lease cannot be accepted after the time for acceptance specified in the lease or licence has expired. A holding over does not constitute an extension of the Licence to Occupy. The purpose of the enactment of s 142 of the Act was to overcome the uncertainty under Australian law as to whether a covenant to renew a lease ran with the land in the same manner that an option to purchase ran with the land. The purpose of s 142 is not to revive an offer or option which had otherwise expired. It was never the case at common law that an option to purchase was automatically revived during a holding over period if the right to exercise the option had expired or died during the term of the lease.
Was the plaintiff given a notice to relocate under cl 4.5?
[106]	In my opinion, there is no evidence that the plaintiff was given a notice to relocate under clause 4.5 of the Licence to Occupy. The construction that the plaintiff places on what was said by Mr Dummett at the Port Users’ Group meeting and the emails dated 6 December 2012, 4 March 2014 and 3 April 2013, are unreasonable. Both the statements at the meeting and in the emails are taken out of context. At all material times, Darwin Port Corporation made it clear to the plaintiff that its occupancy of the Licensed Premises had to cease by the time the Marine Supply Base was commissioned or shortly thereafter. At the same time, Darwin Port Corporation was endeavouring to negotiate a lease which would enable the plaintiff to remain in occupation until that time and to assist the plaintiff move to the Marine Supply Base if that was the ultimate decision of the plaintiff.
Notice to quit
[107]	In the circumstances, I find that the notice to quit is a valid notice to quit which served on the plaintiff in accordance with s 144 (2) of the Law of Property Act (NT).
Conclusion
[108]	The plaintiff’s claims are dismissed and I order judgment for the Darwin Port Corporation. I will hear the parties further as to costs.
------------------------