New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abatement of rent

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2021

WAIKORO LTD v BEACH ARENA LTD [2021] NZHC 3283

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3283
Court

High Court

There was a serious question to be tried that contractual abatement under clause 27 potentially reduced the rent and outgoings owed by BAL such that the guarantors' capped exposure would be below $500,000; Waikoro was adequately protected by equity in the mortgaged apartments and would suffer minimal, quantifiable prejudice while the guarantors would suffer potentially irreversible prejudice from a forced mortgagee sale; accordingly, on balance of convenience and overall justice the interlocutory injunction restraining Waikoro from taking steps under its Property Law Act notices/mortgagee sal…
18 Mar 2021

COFFEE CULTURE FRANCHISES LIMITED v HOME STRAIGHT PARK TRUSTEES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 577

Citation

[2021] NZHC 577
Court

High Court

There was a substantial dispute as to liability because it was arguable that cl 27.5 was triggered by the COVID-19 emergency together with the Inland Revenue's directions reducing staff attendance, which materially prevented customers and staff accessing the premises and therefore entitled the tenant to a fair proportionate abatement of rent; as a result the statutory demand was set aside because the debt claimed was not clearly due and payable and the court could not determine the fair proportion on this application.
29 Sept 2017

HJS AG LIMITED v TUMATATORO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2381

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2381
Court

High Court

Respondent was not entitled to costs because it was not wholly successful and the applicant had not acted unreasonably; given the practical outcome (repairs carried out and tenant preserved in possession) the fair outcome is that costs lie where they fall.
13 Dec 2010

ZHU & ORS v GET FUNKD HUTT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-1447

Citation

openlaw-62799981_360e_4290_9f0f_6a6025339b5f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted cancellation and possession and entered judgment for arrears because there was an insufficient basis to sustain the lessee's asserted 35% set-off and the lease, as enforceable on its terms, precluded raising such a set-off to justify non-payment, while preserving the lessee's right to pursue counterclaims for abatement of rent.

New Zealand Case Law

WAIKORO LTD v BEACH ARENA LTD [2021] NZHC 3283

COFFEE CULTURE FRANCHISES LIMITED v HOME STRAIGHT PARK TRUSTEES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 577

HJS AG LIMITED v TUMATATORO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2381

ZHU & ORS v GET FUNKD HUTT LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-1447