MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v HANDY 4 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1143

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v HANDY 4 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1143

The Court granted an interim injunction because Monaco demonstrated an arguable claim under s 261 and the balance of convenience required protection of the status quo pending resolution; accordingly defendants (other than the tenth defendants) are restrained from re‑entering the units until these proceedings are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1143
Parties
Plaintiffs: MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED; First Defendant: HANDY 4 LIMITED; Second Defendants: MARGARET BARTLETT and ALAN BARTLETT; Third Defendant: 2210 DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED; Fourth Defendants: MICHAEL EDMONDS and ANGELA WINTER; Fifth Defendant: VAUGHAN WORKMAN; Sixth Defendant: MARIANO BOFFA; Seventh Defendant: ZEZORA HOLDINGS LIMITED; Eighth Defendants: PETER and AUDREY HEAVEN; Ninth Defendants: MICHAEL BOUTLE and ROBIN WHALLEY; Tenth Defendants: MICHAEL and INGA COTTON; Eleventh Defendant: ALROD LIMITED; Twelfth Defendant: DAVID SCOTT; Thirteenth Defendant: BODY CORPORATE 334302
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Property Law Act S 261 Application for Relief Against Refusal/failure to Renew Lease / Interim Without‑notice Injunction Granted; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (without notice) restraining defendants (other than tenth defendants) from re‑entering premises; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Lease Renewal, Re‑entry, Status Quo, S 261 Property Law Act
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Interim Injunction Lease Renewal Re‑entry Status Quo S 261 Property Law Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Plaintiffs

HANDY 4 LIMITED

First Defendant

MARGARET BARTLETT and ALAN BARTLETT

Second Defendants

2210 DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Third Defendant

MICHAEL EDMONDS and ANGELA WINTER

Fourth Defendants

VAUGHAN WORKMAN

Fifth Defendant

MARIANO BOFFA

Sixth Defendant

ZEZORA HOLDINGS LIMITED

Seventh Defendant

PETER and AUDREY HEAVEN

Eighth Defendants

MICHAEL BOUTLE and ROBIN WHALLEY

Ninth Defendants

MICHAEL and INGA COTTON

Tenth Defendants

ALROD LIMITED

Eleventh Defendant

DAVID SCOTT

Twelfth Defendant

BODY CORPORATE 334302

Thirteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Law Act S 261 Application for Relief Against Refusal/failure to Renew Lease / Interim Without‑notice Injunction Granted; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff has an arguable claim under s 261 of the Property Law Act
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should restrain lessors from re‑entering the leased premises
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors preserving the status quo

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted an interim injunction because Monaco demonstrated an arguable claim under s 261 and the balance of convenience required protection of the status quo pending resolution; accordingly defendants (other than the tenth defendants) are restrained from re‑entering the units until these proceedings are determined or discontinued.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (without notice) restraining defendants (other than tenth defendants) from re‑entering premises; costs reserved

Orders

  • Defendants (other than tenth defendants) are prohibited from re‑entering possession of the units at 6 Point Road, Nelson until these proceedings are determined or discontinued
  • Plaintiff to serve defendants with this order and the proceeding within seven days and file affidavit proving service