GRIFFITHS V AKATEA DEVELOPMENTS LTD HC AK CIV-2007-404-3677

GRIFFITHS V AKATEA DEVELOPMENTS LTD HC AK CIV-2007-404-3677

The Court held there was an equitable assignment of the lease to Akatea by 19 February 1999; the landlord's acceptance of the assignee's renewal constituted consent and estoppel such that from renewal the assignee (Akatea) was tenant and the original lessee (Adsett) was relieved of ongoing liability; a pre-execution representation by the landlord's solicitor induced reliance and estopped the landlord from enforcing full rent until 31 December 1999; the distraint was invalid because it purported to seize for a single sum combining rent and outgoings and the act of distraint waived the landlord's right to re-enter and terminate; Akatea proved loss of $50,000 for unlawful seizure and...

Citation
openlaw-4a159cd7_d289_4f8f_bdd5_2f89b8211e4f.pdf
Parties
Appellant: John Lawrence Griffiths; First Respondent: Akatea Developments Limited; Second Respondent: John Gary Adsett
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (rehearing) / Reserved Judgment
Outcome
mixed: appeal dismissed as to First Respondent (Akatea), allowed as to Second Respondent (Adsett); counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Equitable Assignment, Distress and Replevin, Promissory Estoppel, Lease Renewal, Conversion, Damages, Forfeiture and Waiver
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Equity Tort Equitable Assignment Distress and Replevin Promissory Estoppel +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lawrence Griffiths

Appellant

Akatea Developments Limited

First Respondent

John Gary Adsett

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (rehearing) / Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease was equitably assigned to Akatea Developments Ltd
  2. 2 Whether an equitable assignment conferred enforceable rights against assignee and former tenant
  3. 3 Whether the lease was varied to reduce rental and whether promissory estoppel prevented enforcement of full rent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was an equitable assignment of the lease to Akatea by 19 February 1999; the landlord's acceptance of the assignee's renewal constituted consent and estoppel such that from renewal the assignee (Akatea) was tenant and the original lessee (Adsett) was relieved of ongoing liability; a pre-execution representation by the landlord's solicitor induced reliance and estopped the landlord from enforcing full rent until 31 December 1999; the distraint was invalid because it purported to seize for a single sum combining rent and outgoings and the act of distraint waived the landlord's right to re-enter and terminate; Akatea proved loss of $50,000 for unlawful seizure and...

Court Disposition

mixed: appeal dismissed as to First Respondent (Akatea), allowed as to Second Respondent (Adsett); counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment for First Respondent Akatea Developments Limited for damages of NZD 50000 plus interest at 7% from 1 April 2005
  • Counterclaim: finding that Akatea was tenant and that Mr Griffiths is estopped from claiming full lease rent until 31 December 1999; parties to agree quantum of outstanding rental arrears by 16 May 2008