E & E DEVELOPMENTS LTD V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV-2009-404-5656

E & E DEVELOPMENTS LTD V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV-2009-404-5656

The lease language, read in context, meant the Annual Rent became payable only from the date the progress payments were repaid to the lessee (21 June 2004); consequently the first defendant had no obligation to pay the claimed rent for the period 8 December 2003 to 21 June 2004 and the plaintiff's summary judgment application failed against both defendants; there was no pleaded or demonstrable basis to hold the second defendant liable.

Citation
openlaw-0c69f316_016a_4d03_a86b_eaf46e9cc3bf.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: E & E DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED; First Defendant: HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Second Defendant: HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment (heard 29 March 2010; Judgment 31 March 2010)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed in respect of both defendants; proceeding adjourned to the Summary Judgment List on 15 April 2010; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Payment Obligations Under Lease, Summary Judgment, Parent Company Liability
Contract Property Civil Procedure Lease Interpretation Payment Obligations Under Lease Summary Judgment Parent Company Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E & E DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Plaintiff

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

First Defendant

HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment (heard 29 March 2010; Judgment 31 March 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lessee (first defendant) was contractually obliged to pay rent from the commencement date (8 December 2003) to 21 June 2004
  2. 2 Whether the word 'payable' in the lease imposed liability prior to repayment of progress payments
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant (parent company) was liable absent a direct contractual link

Ratio Decidendi

The lease language, read in context, meant the Annual Rent became payable only from the date the progress payments were repaid to the lessee (21 June 2004); consequently the first defendant had no obligation to pay the claimed rent for the period 8 December 2003 to 21 June 2004 and the plaintiff's summary judgment application failed against both defendants; there was no pleaded or demonstrable basis to hold the second defendant liable.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed in respect of both defendants; proceeding adjourned to the Summary Judgment List on 15 April 2010; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for summary judgment dismissed against both defendants.
  • Proceeding adjourned to the Summary Judgment List at 2:15pm on 15 April 2010.