New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agreement to lease

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2018

KUNG v DVD ADVANCE LTD [2018] NZHC 3319

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3319
Court

High Court

The court declined summary judgment for obligations after 23 May 2016 because of a genuine and material factual conflict about termination and alleged oral agreement to release liability; however the court held Mr Ferguson was liable as guarantor under the signed agreement to lease for rent and outgoings to the date of vacation (23 May 2016) because his signature adjacent to 'Guaranteed by' evidenced a binding guarantee within the agreement and met s27 requirements; summary judgment awarded for $36,587.62 against both defendants for sums due to 23 May 2016, with liability for contractual inte…
15 Aug 2016

CHAMBERS v CHATFIELD [2016] NZHC 1871

Citation

(2016) 10 NZBLC 99
Court

High Court

Clause 11 was a covenant to enter into a guarantee within an agreement to lease; Walsh v Lonsdale and Inglis operate so that where specific performance of the agreement to lease is appropriate the parties are to be treated as if the Deed (including the guarantee) had been executed; s 27 PLA does not prevent specific performance of the agreement to lease because s 27 governs standalone contracts of guarantee not covenants within agreements to lease, and an order requiring signature would satisfy s 27, therefore the District Court judgment enforcing liability was correct.
2 Feb 2015

W & G SPORTS LIMITED v BATCHELAR CENTRE LIMITED [2015] NZHC 179

Citation

[2015] NZHC 179
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand succeeds because W & G demonstrated a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing: special condition (4) of the November 2013 Agreement to Lease is ambiguous as to which lease terms would apply if BCL failed to acquire No.33, and factual conflicts about the parties' intentions and conditions cannot be conclusively resolved on affidavit; accordingly the statutory demand is set aside.
10 Jul 2012

LOWRY BAY SECTION ONE LIMITED V PUKEATUA KOHANGA REO CHARITABLE TRUST HC WN CIV-2012-485-709

Citation

openlaw-d6895e40_6465_48e3_a9f8_a7379733aee9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Agreement to Lease constituted an enforceable agreement to lease creating equitable lease obligations; the plaintiff, by acquisition of title and given the defendant's conduct, stood in the lessor's position (defendant waived or acquiesced to any non-assignment provision); defendant occupied the premises and is liable for specific performance to execute the ADLS Deed of Lease and for rent from occupation (at latest 17 January 2011); quantum of rent and outgoings to be determined subsequently.
29 Jun 2012

AUC PROPERTIES LIMITED V ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL HC ROT CIV-2012-463-000022

Citation

openlaw-8fe5202b_71a7_4901_8400_172bf2660bac.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there are genuine disputes of fact and credit as to whether the parties had agreed all essential terms (notably term, rent, and the 'get-out' clause), and whether acts relied on constitute part performance; plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of showing no arguable defence and the matters require trial and discovery.
8 Oct 2009

LAI YU CHAN AND LAI MAN FAN V WARREN SIU AND MINNA HO HC AK CIV 2008-404-008418

Citation

openlaw-b4fb0572_83e7_4dd1_bfad_fa9401845882.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate no defence: there were real and arguable questions whether the 2005/2007 agreements conferred a lease or agreement to lease, whether the rent‑free entitlement was triggered only on actual completion (potentially delayed to 9 May 2008) and whether estoppel applied; these disputes precluded summary disposal.
9 Sept 2009

GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED V HAILES & ORS HC NWP CIV 2008-443-000286

Citation

openlaw-0c350d4f_1e2f_4e97_a173_e1a6cbadd31d.pdf
Court

High Court

The emails did not objectively show an intention to be immediately bound and the parties expressly contemplated a formal signed lease; the parties had not agreed essential terms (notably the overall rent and the capitalisation rate or a binding mechanism to determine the lessor's contribution) and those gaps were too wide for the court to fill; there was no ostensible authority for Mr Young to bind Mr Hailes; s2(2) Contracts Enforcement Act requirements were not satisfied. Therefore the plaintiff's claim cannot succeed and summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
17 Mar 2009

NORTHCOTT LANDS LTD V RITCHIE, SHEARER AND KOCH AS TRUSTEES OF THE TE ORANGA PAI TRUST HC NWP CIV 2008-443-439

Citation

openlaw-6bd0ca62_b942_43ce_88fb_3c5189187dd0.pdf
Court

High Court

There was a concluded oral agreement to lease entered on 13 March 2003 because all essential terms were agreed (parties, premises, six year term, rental at $150/acre), Richards' 4 April 2003 letter constituted a sufficient memorandum in writing under s 2(2) because Richards was lawfully authorised to record and implement the agreement, and the parties evidenced an immediate intention to be bound by possession, payment of rent, maintenance and other acts; hence Northcott's cancellation in February 2004 was unlawful and the appeal fails (matter remitted to District Court to assess losses).
10 Jul 2008

NORSAND LIMITED V THE WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC WHA CIV 2008-488-231

Citation

openlaw-65d525dd_c032_427f_85d3_fd02a630eaf8.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to show an arguable case of a concluded agreement to lease because essential terms remained unresolved and the Council's documented offer was conditional and not accepted; therefore doctrines of Walsh v Lonsdale or part performance could not be invoked to sustain a caveatable interest and the caveat could not be preserved.
20 Dec 2006

HONK LAND LTD V FETHERSTON HC AK CIV-2005-404-7019

Citation

openlaw-a0e3aa80_41f7_4283_88b5_8c4ea9d2dafd.pdf
Court

High Court

The agreement to lease did not fix with sufficient certainty the terms of the formal lease or the guarantee; consequently specific performance and the Walsh v Lonsdale doctrine were inapplicable and the guarantor's liability was limited to the clearly certain fixed six month term (amounting to $944).