South Bank pub Hop & Pickle shuts amid landlord stoush

A gastropub in Brisbane’s South Bank will soon close down after it lost a bitter legal stoush claiming “unconscionable conduct” and favouritism.

Hop & Pickle, on Little Stanley St, will close from New Year’s Day permanently. Picture: Anthony Weate

A British gastropub in a prime retail area in Brisbane will close next week after it lost a bitter legal stoush claiming “unconscionable conduct” and favouritism.

On December 13, the Hop and Pickle, announced it would be closing permanently from New Year’s Day, after a decade in business in the dining precinct in the heart of South Bank.

“Unfortunately the lease is expiring,” the Facebook post states.

The announcement by RGM Hospitality Pty Ltd, trading as Hop and Pickle, came a day after they lost a bid to receive $750,000 compensation from South Bank Corporation in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

They have agreed to move out by January 2, according to the QCAT decision handed down on December 12.

RGM Hospitality (RGM), which is owned by Rob Law, 53, from South Brisbane and Hao Gao, 38 from Rochedale South, filed a retail tenancy dispute claim in QCAT in June 2023 after a mediation failed.

Rob Law.

Publican and restaurateur Hao Gao.

RGM sought QCAT to order SBC refund all money it paid to SBC since it took over the Hop and Pickle lease in February 2018, totalling $812,987.

However the cap on compensation that QCAT can order is $750,000.

They argued that their business activity statements it filed during its lease show the business they lost as a result of SBC’s conduct.

But in their decision, QCAT presiding member Kate Chapple, together with Neil Judge and Don McBryde threw out RGM’s claim alleging unconscionable conduct by South Bank Corporation (SBC).

“The panel finds that RGM fails in its compensation claim against SBC and the appropriate order is that RGM’s application is dismissed,” they ruled.

Among the eight claims made by RGM against SBC include that SBC allegedly “behaved unconscionably in its favourable treatment of the” rival beer hall Tippler’s Tap business “by allowing relocation and providing subsidies”.

RGM unsuccessfully claimed that it has been “forced to compete with a state-sponsored business” triggering “losses in the Hop and Pickle business”.

Hop & Pickle. Picture: Anthony Weate

SBC rejected claims that the Tippler’s Tap was “state sponsored” but conceded that it gave

Tippler’s Tap a “rent-free period” after it requested relocation to a larger site in the dining precinct, which it said was “standard practice”.

RGM also claimed that Hop and Pickle’s reputation was tarnished and it suffered a “significant drop-off in trade because people believe the business is going to close down” when SBC sent an email to all of the dining precinct tenants revealing they owed $178,000 in rent.

It claims that the rental arrears were a confidential figure.

SBC did not comment about this arm of the claim.

RGM also claimed over a nearly two-year period from late 2022 to October this year their business was disrupted because there were only “four months” when there was no construction noise from neighbouring dining venues such as Tippler’s Tap, Baba Ganoush, Smokehouse and Bourbon Street.

SBC told QCAT that renovations had seen overall trade in the dining area increase.

RGM also claimed that SBC “other businesses are given prominence on the SBC website ahead of the Hop and Pick;e” and it is “seldom mentioned” in the SBC promo emails.

SBC defended the claim stating that its promotional and advertising budget was “not designed to serve a particular tenant or tenants”.

RGM also claimed that its venue floods and it has lost business due to water flowing from the outside common areas during rain.

SBC claims that “water ingress is common among the premises in the dining precinct” that sit next to the outdoor common areas, and that under the lease it is RGM’s responsibility to deal with water ingress issues.

“The panel considers there is no credible evidence before the Tribunal that SBC’s conduct towards RGM in the course of the lease bears any resemblance to unconscionable conduct,” the decision states.

“The High Court has observed that a finding of unconscionable conduct requires the unconscientious taking advantage of a special disadvantage, which has been variously described as requiring victimisation, unconscientious conduct, or exploitation,” the decision states.

“The panel considers RGM’s bare allegations of unconscionable conduct against SBC raise particularly serious questions,” the decision states.

RGM submitted that as a small business it did not have the resources to hire experts to write reports on the size of losses they suffered, allegedly as a result of SBC’s actions.