New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sublease

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2017

RESTAURANT BRANDS LTD v QST LTD [2017] NZHC 166

Citation

[2017] NZHC 166
Court

High Court

The Court held the Arbitral Tribunal did not err in law: cl 4.2 requires rent to be 9% of the 'current freehold market undeveloped block value' of the sublease unit as defined in the headlease (incorporating cl 3.3), meaning the value must be assessed for the sublease unit disregarding goodwill and improvements rather than a numerical pass-through of the headlease valuation; this interpretation is the plain and ordinary meaning and is consistent with contractual context and business commonsense.
14 Jul 2014

TE WAIRUA O TE ORA LIMITED v TUHOE WAIKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1627

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1627
Court

High Court

On a strike out application the Court must assume the plaintiff's pleaded facts can be proved; given competing evidence about execution and approval of the lease/sublease and possible involvement of the Board in events leading to dispossession, the plaintiff's claims are not so clearly untenable as to be struck out and a full factual inquiry is required.
2 Jul 2013

WILFRED & ORS V GAN & ANOR CA184/2013 [2013] NZCA 285

Citation

[2013] NZCA 285
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for an interim stay was dismissed because the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondents: appellants sought to remain in possession without paying rent despite arrears and an earlier undertaking to pay; damages were an adequate remedy; head lease had been disclaimed and appellants faced substantial legal obstacles to entitlement; third‑party and commercial realities weighed against maintaining the stay.
17 May 2012

TINLINE PROPERTIES (CANTERBURY) LIMITED V WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-2726

Citation

openlaw-30e131de_e9c1_4c74_a4ea_3431650d6c8c.pdf
Court

High Court

The head tenant (Westfield) did not hold over because it did not remain in factual physical occupation; the landlord (Tinline) accepted the undertenant (Barrington Trading) as its tenant by permitting continued occupation and accepting payments through its agent such that clause 2.2 did not impose rent liability on Westfield, so defendants succeed.
15 Feb 2012

CAMELOT COURT MOTEL LIMITED V WARREN BRUCE ANDERSON AND MARGARET ELLEN ANDERSON HC HAM CIV-2011-419-21

Citation

openlaw-e9747427_9143_42c2_8748_30361a609e62.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the motel lease, though ineffective at law to extend automatically, continued in equity on renewal of the head leases so the defendants are bound to pay the renewed ground rent; the defendants' claim under the Contractual Mistakes Act fails because their complaint is an omission to consider the imminent increase in ground rent (not a positive mistake) and thus is not within the Act; unconscionability and unjust enrichment defences are not made out; summary judgment is granted for the plaintiff for unpaid ground rent of $505,129.03 while issues of costs, interest and other damag…
14 Sept 2011

SIMPLY LOGISTICS LIMITED V REAL FOODS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3497

Citation

openlaw-d12e0db4_36b5_4d9a_8324_dd94d97ca203.pdf
Court

High Court

Although contractual no-set-off clauses ordinarily weigh against setting aside a statutory demand, the court will exercise its s 290 discretion where particular circumstances make refusal to set aside oppressive or unfair. Here Real Foods' refusal to apply admitted, undisputed invoices against the rent and its deliberate retention of Simply Logistics' pallets produced a net position where undisputed sums plus the pallet claim exceeded the statutory demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.
31 Aug 2007

NZPS INVESTMENTS LTD V THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF LAND CA CA138/06

Citation

openlaw-04e99c75_17fa_429f_a751_c57a6f6e7778.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Unit Titles Act 1972 does not permit unit title subdivisions of subleasehold estates nor the creation of unit titles for registered future leasehold estates prior to their commencement because the Act's text and scheme (notably ss 5(1)(f), 29(1) and 31(4)) and the protections it provides for unit proprietors demonstrate Parliament did not intend such complex derivative or successive lease structures to be accommodated without statutory amendment.

New Zealand Case Law

RESTAURANT BRANDS LTD v QST LTD [2017] NZHC 166

TE WAIRUA O TE ORA LIMITED v TUHOE WAIKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1627

WILFRED & ORS V GAN & ANOR CA184/2013 [2013] NZCA 285

TINLINE PROPERTIES (CANTERBURY) LIMITED V WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-2726

CAMELOT COURT MOTEL LIMITED V WARREN BRUCE ANDERSON AND MARGARET ELLEN ANDERSON HC HAM CIV-2011-419-21

SIMPLY LOGISTICS LIMITED V REAL FOODS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3497

NZPS INVESTMENTS LTD V THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF LAND CA CA138/06