New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rent recovery

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2022

ROSKILL NOMINEES LIMITED v CUNNINGHAM [2022] NZHC 160

Citation

[2022] NZHC 160
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff met the r 5.45(1) threshold by showing it lacked independent resources and was dependent on shareholder funding, the Court exercised its discretion under r 5.45(2) and declined to order security because the plaintiff's rent recovery claim had substantial merit, part of the impecuniosity resulted from the defendant's failure to pay rent, delay was neutral, and ordering security would not be just in all the circumstances.
11 Nov 2021

MJ & KIMKO COMPANY LTD v JNJ HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 3055

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3055
Court

High Court

The District Court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine factual disputes and an arguable defence based on alleged derogation by the lessor which could operate as a set-off/counterclaim against the rent claim; the agreement to lease (lease proposal) governed the parties, the standard lease was not incorporated, and the matter must be remitted for a full hearing.
6 Jul 2018

OMV NEW ZEALAND LTD v PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LTD [2018] NZCA [240]

Citation

[2018] NZCA
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 44.3 operates as an exception to the lease's arbitration clause (cl 44.1) and permits the landlord to bring court proceedings for unpaid rent; a tenant may plead a defence that rent is not payable, but set-offs and counterclaims arising from alleged breaches or misrepresentations are for arbitration; therefore the High Court rightly refused to stay the landlord's summary judgment proceedings and the appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
8 May 2012

BOUNTIFUL HOLDINGS LIMITED V UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HC AK CIV-2012-404-581

Citation

openlaw-a999a7df_f090_4338_bce9_d8f485703b7f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court declined to set aside the statutory demand because the lease contained an effective no-set-off/no-deductions clause (supported by Browns Real Estate Ltd v Grand Lakes) which, absent exceptional grounds, precludes reliance on set-off as the sole basis for setting aside under s 290(4)(b); additionally the applicant was shown to be insolvent so setting aside would serve no useful purpose; the statutory demand was varied to reflect undisputed invoices and an order for payment was made.
13 Oct 2006

HI-TECH INVESTMENTS LTD V WORLD AVIATION SYSTEMS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-3579

Citation

openlaw-68efb814_c619_4e4a_a976_7c25d5e3f134.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 44.3 permits court proceedings only to recover rent or other monies for which liability has been established under the lease (or established by arbitration); disputes as to the fixation of the rent fall within clause 44.1 and must be arbitrated, so the defendant is entitled to a stay.

New Zealand Case Law

ROSKILL NOMINEES LIMITED v CUNNINGHAM [2022] NZHC 160

MJ & KIMKO COMPANY LTD v JNJ HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 3055

OMV NEW ZEALAND LTD v PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LTD [2018] NZCA [240]

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

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

BOUNTIFUL HOLDINGS LIMITED V UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HC AK CIV-2012-404-581

HI-TECH INVESTMENTS LTD V WORLD AVIATION SYSTEMS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-3579