Competing applications arose from an aborted commercial sublease transaction.
The sub-tenant sought a declaration that the sublease was null and void and requested the return of its deposit, arguing that conditions regarding head landlord approval and creditworthiness were not properly satisfied within the contractual time limits.
The court found that notice of the head landlord’s approval by email satisfied the agreement and applicable statutory provisions, and that the sub-tenant’s own failure to timely provide required financial information prevented it from relying on the timing of the creditworthiness condition.
Applying the principle that a party cannot rely on the non‑fulfillment of a condition it caused, the court held the sublease binding and breached by the sub-tenant.
The deposit was forfeited and damages were to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.