New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice to quit

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2019

MARPHONA TRUSTEES LTD v NYX LTD and AZOURI [2019] NZHC 2923

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2923
Court

High Court

The Court held Marphona failed to discharge the onus for summary judgment because NYX was holding over under an express contractual periodic tenancy (clause 36.1) rather than solely as a statutory tenant under s210, there were material factual disputes (including an asserted agreement deferring rent pending a Code Compliance Certificate and whether re-entry occurred within the notice period), and Marphona's pleadings and evidence on rent and repair costs were inadequate; accordingly summary judgment was dismissed.
28 Mar 2013

ARONUI KO HUIARAU TRUST BOARD V MARION AGNES EDWARDS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2012-404-2731

Citation

openlaw-c21b9449_556a_4f5c_836b_1642e3270a0b.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment on liability was declined because genuine disputes of fact and credibility exist on essential issues — tenancy status on possession date, valid service of the 15 December 2011 notice to quit, classification of the kitchen items as fixtures or chattels, and whether Te Kaahu repudiated the tenancy — matters that require a full evidential hearing rather than resolution on affidavits.
27 Nov 2008

THE FRESH CHEF LIMITED V CATER AND JOHNSON AND ANOR HC WHA CIV-2008-488-477

Citation

openlaw-db13e340_2177_4d19_bab6_df55a9f0e9cc.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 38 governed the holding over and entitled the landlord to terminate the tenancy by one month's notice; the November 2004 indulgence only promised a reasonable period for the tenant to find a buyer subject to the tenant making prompt and serious efforts and did not imply a separate obligation to give advance warning before the landlord could determine reasonable time had expired; promissory estoppel did not provide broader protection.
12 Mar 2008

BURRELL DEMOLITION V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2006-485-1274

Citation

openlaw-d9d32ebe_4af2_4fd6_a85f_c3c3744899e2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found no binding oral agreement for renewal; the written Option Clause granted only a right of first refusal conditional on compliance. The New Lease was valid and not procured by duress. The Condition Precedent was a process-based requirement (approval of a management plan to establish compliance over time), the Council had extended and repeatedly treated approval as ongoing, and the Council's 2004 determination that the Condition Precedent had failed was based on error and inaction; accordingly the Notice to Quit was invalid and Burrell Demolition remains a tenant under the Origin…

New Zealand Case Law

MARPHONA TRUSTEES LTD v NYX LTD and AZOURI [2019] NZHC 2923

ARONUI KO HUIARAU TRUST BOARD V MARION AGNES EDWARDS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2012-404-2731

THE FRESH CHEF LIMITED V CATER AND JOHNSON AND ANOR HC WHA CIV-2008-488-477

BURRELL DEMOLITION V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2006-485-1274