AAA Storage Limited v Onehunga Primesite Limited

[2015] NZHC 3028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3197 [2015] NZHC 3028

BETWEEN

AAA STORAGE LIMITED

Applicant

AND

ONEHUNGA PRIMESITE LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Appearances:	T Bowler for the Applicant P D Sills for the Respondent
Judgment:	2 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 December 2015 at 3:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:

Mr T Bowler, Neilsons Lawyers, Onehunga, Auckland
Mr P D Sills, Barrister, Auckland

Mr P Sargent, (Respondent’s instructing solicitor), Sargent Lawyers, Auckland

AAA STORAGE LTD v ONEHUNGA PRIMESITE LTD [2015] NZHC 3028 [2 December 2015]

[1]      The applicant was the tenant and the respondent the landlord of premises under a deed of lease.   On 14 November 2014 the landlord served a notice under ss 245 and 246 of the Property Law Act 2007 of intention to cancel for arrears of rent and other sums alleged to be due under the lease (the notice).  On 5 December 2014 the tenant filed an application under s 253 of the Property Law Act for relief against cancellation.    On 8  December 2014  the  landlord  consented to  an  interim  order restraining  cancellation.    The  proceeding  was  subsequently  adjourned.    On  18

February 2015 there were final orders in favour of the tenant restraining the landlord from re-entering the premises in reliance on the notice.

[2]      Both  parties  then  sought  costs.    The  tenant  sought,  in  the  alternative, indemnity,  increased  or  scale  costs.    The  landlord  sought  solicitor/client  costs pursuant to a provision in the lease.

[3]      The tenant contended, first, that the landlord issued the notice for an ulterior and improper purpose – to place the tenant under duress to enter into a new lease on terms more favourable to the landlord.  It was submitted that this was an abuse of process, bringing into play High Court r 14.6(4)(a).   The tenant submitted, in the alternative,  that  it  was  entitled  to  increased  costs  under  various  provisions  of r 14.6(3) on three grounds: failure to file a notice of opposition and affidavits by particular dates; refusing to provide an undertaking not to re-enter the premises after the outstanding rent had been paid, so that the tenant was bound to apply to the Court for relief; and refusing an offer of settlement, being an offer to pay the arrears if an undertaking not to re-enter was provided.   Costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements, were sought in the further alternative in a sum of $7,854.

[4]      The landlord sought indemnity costs on the following grounds: the tenant’s default and subsequent actions led to the proceeding being issued; the landlord acted reasonably by providing undertakings to the Court that it would not cancel the lease or re-enter the premises, and this minimised costs; and the landlord is entitled to indemnity costs under r 14.6(4)(e) because of clause 6.1 of the lease which provides:

The Tenant shall pay the Landlord’s solicitors costs of and incidental to the enforcement or attempted enforcement of the Landlord’s rights remedies and powers under this lease.

[5]      The parties agreed that costs should be determined on the papers.  Detailed affidavits on costs were filed from a director of the tenant, Mr Waugh, and the landlord’s director, Mr Kirkpatrick.  Leave was granted to the tenant to file a further affidavit on a question as to whether it had been granted credit for short payments of rent.  There was a second affidavit from Mr Waugh.  This was followed by a further affidavit from the landlord’s accounts manager, Ms Budgen, and then a third for the tenant from Mr Waugh.

[6]      On the basis of the evidence and submissions now before the Court there are two main areas of factual enquiry:

(a)       Was the tenant in default when the notice was served on 14 November

2014 and, if so, to what extent?

(b)      What occurred following service of the notice?

Was the tenant in default? To what extent?

[7]      The total claimed in the notice, apart from costs, was $12,603.91 for arrears of rent and various outgoings or expenses.  There are four components of the arrears. These are set out in Mr Kirkpatrick’s affidavit.

[8]      The issues turn in considerable measure on analysis of statements from the landlord to the tenant, including amended statements.  The statement on which the landlord relied is one dated 13 November 2014 and recording a balance outstanding of $12,603.91.   It was attached to the notice.   The tenant, amongst other things, claimed that there were earlier statements recording credits in favour of the tenant but which had been removed from the 13 November statement.   Following the granting of leave to file a further affidavit, Mr Waugh produced a copy of a statement dated 16 October 2014 which records three credits in favour of the tenant of $1,000 each.

[9]      For the purpose of the discussion that follows I include as an appendix to this judgment a reproduction of the 16 October and 13 November statements.  There are minor amendments to formatting and some notations but no change to the substance.

The two statements are set out as a composite document so that corresponding entries, or items removed, can readily be compared.  Some preliminary observations will assist before coming to the necessary detail:

(a)       The lease was of premises known as Upper D.

(b)Both statements commence on 1 October 2013 with a nil entry.  This was one month before the lease commencement date of 1 November

2013.   The statements therefore cover the full period of the lease down to the final entry on the October statement of 15 October 2014 and 6 November 2014 on the November statement.

(c)       Rent was $6,900 per month including GST.

(d)Rent  was  payable  on  the  first  day  of  each  month  with  the  first payment due on 1 January 2014.  The first payment was in fact made on 17 October 2013 (along with a bond of $6,000).

(e)       There  are  seven  entries  with  a  notation  “(rent  U/C)”  or  “(U/C)”.

These are contained only in the October statement.  They are colour coded orange.  These entries relate to a short term lease taken by the tenant from the landlord of other premises known as “Upper C”.  This was a unit next to Upper D and taken on a short term basis by the tenant because of delays by the landlord in completing a fit-out of Upper D as stipulated in the lease for Upper D.  The rent for Upper C was $1,000 per month plus GST.   The October statement recorded three  debits  for  rent  for  Upper  C  on  22  July,  18 August  and  22

September, with credits for rent paid on 22 July, 22 August and 22

September.   The unsigned tenancy agreement for Upper C records commencement on 22 July so the tenant paid on due date.  There is a final  entry  for  Upper  C  in  the  October  statement  –  a  debit  of

$10,610.08  on  15  October.   This  has  no  relevance to  the present issues.

(f)      The remaining colour coding relates to items of direct relevance to Upper D quantum issues.   It is explained in the discussion which follows.

[10]     Against  that  background  I  will  deal  with  the  four  components  of  the

landlord’s claim for $12,603.91 under the following sub-headings.

Upper D rent due 1 April 2014

[11]     The landlord contended that rent of $6,900 due on 1 April 2014 had not been paid when the notice was issued.  The tenant contended that it had been paid, albeit in arrears, and that the only rent outstanding when the notice was served on 14

November was the rent due on 1 November 2014.  This was paid before the notice expired but there is a question whether the tenant was in default when the notice was issued.

[12]     The landlord’s contention is consistent with the contractual requirement to pay rent monthly in advance, on the first of each month, and it is consistent with most of the statements that have been produced.  The tenant contended that the rent contractually due on 1 April was paid on 2 May.   Mr Waugh produced his own schedule recording rent payments against particular rent payment dates.   This schedule ignores the landlord’s statements which specify not only the due date for a rent payment but an invoice with an invoice number.  The invoice number for the 1

April rent is 501.   There is no entry in the several statements produced, which records a credit given by the landlord for payment of invoice 501.1   As the creditor, the landlord could have credited the tenant’s belated payment on 2 May to the 1

April liability, but it did not do so.   The tenant’s payment on 2 May is credited against invoice 521, which was the debit number for rent due on 1 May.   The landlord, as the creditor, in the absence of a stipulation from the debtor tenant, was entitled to apply the 2 May payment to the rent due on 1 May.  The tenant got clear

notice of this from the successive statements from the landlord which followed.

1      There were other statements produced in addition to those for 16 October and 13 November.

[13]     The problem for the landlord is that the landlord’s treatment of payments changed towards the end of the November statement with a payment of $6,900 from the tenant on 28 October 2014.  That was credited by the landlord to rent that at that date was not yet due – rent that became due on 1 November 2014 (invoice 644). The general rule is that, in these circumstances, if the creditor has arrears the payment should be credited by the creditor firstly to those arrears.   At this date, on the landlord’s own accounting, there were the arrears of 1 April 2014.  On this basis the

28 October payment by the tenant cleared the overdue April rent.   Also on this analysis the only arrears of rent when the notice was issued on 13 November (and served on 14 November) was the rent due on 1 November.  This is what the tenant’s solicitors contended in a letter of 25 November.  The lease provides that the landlord may cancel the lease if rent is in arrears for 10 working days and the tenant has failed to remedy the breach within a further 10 working days after service of a notice. When the notice was served in this case the 1 November rent had not been in arrears for 10 working days.  10 working days expired at the end of the day of service.

Alleged short payments of $1,000 for rent due June-September 2014

[14]     This is the main issue.  It makes up $4,000 of a total of $4,561.20 not paid before expiry of the notice.

[15]     Rent for the months of June, July, August and September was short paid in each month by $1,000.  There was no argument about that.  Mr Waugh, in his first affidavit, claimed that credit notes had been issued for $1,000 for the rent due on 1

June, 1 July and 1 August, but the statement he produced to seek to prove this did not record  any  credits.    With  his  second  affidavit  the  16  October  statement  was produced.  The debits for rent, the credit notes and the payments of the reduced sum ($5,900) for the months of June, July and August, are highlighted in yellow on the October statement.   There is red highlighting for three lines on the November statement indicating the omission of the credit notes from that statement.

[16]     Mr Waugh said that the sums of $1,000 were deducted because of delays by the landlord in completing the fit-out, which was required by a provision in the lease to be completed by 1 January 2014.   A major problem, in relation to delays, and

disruption of the tenant’s business, was installation of toilet facilities, a ramp and other items.  On 24 May 2014 Mr Waugh wrote to the landlord as follows:

I hate to bring the subject to your attention again but the ongoing issue regarding the toilet situation has now gone beyond what we would consider acceptable. We appreciate the problems associated with resource consent etc but we are now 6 months further on and into Winter and the situation is totally unacceptable. This should have been resolved a long time ago, in fact before we moved in.  It is most embarrassing & humiliating to have to use the current outside portaloos and quite honestly bloody cold as well.   We think this should at least be reflected in the rent charged to us and we intend to deduct $1,000.00 each month until the situation is resolved.

[17]     There  is  no  evidence  of  a  response  from  the  landlord,  apart  from  the statement showing three credit notes, which I will come back to.

[18]     Mr Kirkpatrick, in the principal affidavit for the landlord, did not directly address Mr Waugh’s contention to the essential effect that reductions of $1,000 a month  were  agreed.    Mr  Kirkpatrick  simply  referred  to  the  statement  of  13

November which does not show any credits.   The October statement showing the credits  was  produced  in  response  by  Mr Waugh  and  this  was  followed  by  the affidavit from Ms Budgen on behalf of the landlord.

[19]     Ms Budgen says that she has “first-hand knowledge of the issues that relate to

the exhibit attached to the supplementary affidavit of David Waugh”.  This is the 16

October statement.  I accept that Ms Budgen as accounts manager does have first- hand knowledge of preparation of the landlord’s statements.   I will come back to what she says about the adjustments.  She also states in her affidavit that there was no agreement between the parties for the $1,000 reductions in the rental payment. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that Ms Budgen would have any direct knowledge as to whether there was an agreement.  That was a matter for Mr Kirkpatrick, but he chose not to reply to Mr Waugh’s second affidavit on costs.

[20]     Ms Budgen’s evidence about the credit notes included the following:

6.        The three “credited” amounts only appeared in the one 16 October

2014 statement.  They do not appear anywhere else and no credit notes were in fact issued to AAA Storage Limited.

…

9.Mr Kirkpatrick … wanted to know how much the applicant had outstanding in rent and operating expenses for both stores excluding the amount of the short paid rental on the Upper D store.  The only way I could achieve this was:

(a)      To issue credit notes against the short paid rent; and

(b)      To split the original single … account into two customers –

one for each store (Upper D and Upper C).

10.I never sent the applicant any credit notes as there was no intention to credit these amounts to the applicant.   This was simply an accounting exercise to enable me to split what had been a single customer into two customers on Xero [the accounting system].

…

16.In hindsight I should not have issued these $1000 inclusive of GST rental  shortfalls  as  credit  notes  at  the  time  before  splitting  the account.  However, that was the only way I knew how to provide a statement that showed the amount owing for both stores without showing this rental shortfall.  The respondent did not want to pursue the short-paid rent at the time it occurred in 2014 because the work was still ongoing in the Upper D store and we did not want a dispute with the tenant over the unpaid rent until that work was complete.

[21]     Inserting the three credits can be reconciled with Ms Budgen’s evidence as to what she was instructed to achieve.  But what she says she was instructed to achieve does not sit well with the landlord.  In my judgment, what Ms Budgen was instructed to do was to create a reconstruction after the event in an endeavour to explain away credits which actually had been given.

[22]     Ms  Budgen  describes  the  preparation  of  the  October  statement  with  the credits as a one-off exercise to comply with the instruction she says she had.  This is given emphasis by paragraph 6 of her affidavit in which she stated that the credits “only appeared in the one 16 October 2014 statement”.  That statement is incorrect. Mr Waugh, in his third affidavit, produced an earlier statement, dated 18 September

2014, which records the same three credits.  The fact that the credits were recorded in successive monthly statements suggests reasonably clearly that the landlord was granting real credits to the tenant.  The fact that a separate document, described as a credit note, was not sent to the tenant does not matter.  The statement is itself clear notice to the tenant.

[23]     A conclusion  that  the landlord  was  granting real  credits  to  the tenant  is reinforced  by two  matters.   The first  is  the fact  just  noted:  the September and October statements recording the credits were sent to the tenant; they were not produced as an internal accounting exercise to show to Mr Kirkpatrick the balances owing for Upper D and Upper C.  The second point is that the first credit, on 1 June

2014, followed only a week after Mr Waugh’s email to Mr Kirkpatrick of 24 May about the $1,000 deductions until the fit-out was completed.  And in that regard it may be assumed that the fit-out had not been completed by 1 September, so that a further credit of $1,000 for September rent should have been granted.  A conclusion that the fit-out had not been completed follows from Ms Budgen’s evidence that the work was still underway when she made the adjustments recorded in the 16 October statement.

[24]     For these reasons  I conclude that  the tenant  was  given credits,  and  was entitled to further credits, because of delay in the fit-out and which delay, in terms of the contractual requirement, was excessive.  And this had required the tenant to rent additional space, in Upper C, when it should not have had to do so.  The rent for Upper C, excluding GST, was the amount the tenant was given credits for against the Upper D lease – $1,000.

[25]     If I am wrong in that conclusion the most obvious alternative does not assist the landlord on the question of costs.  The most obvious alternative construction is that, although the landlord did not intend to grant credits, the landlord nevertheless expressly represented to the tenant, in successive statements in September and October 2014 (and possibly in earlier statements) that the requested deduction of

$1,000 per month was being allowed.  On the basis of Ms Budgen’s advice of the instructions  she  received,  and  particularly  as  recorded  at  paragraph  16  of  her affidavit, that would amount to an intentional misrepresentation by the landlord of the  position.    In  respect  of  this  possibility  I  am  bound  to  record  that  I  am nevertheless sceptical about the stated reason from Mr Kirkpatrick for his instruction to Ms Budgen – that the balances owing be recorded excluding the shortfall of

$1,000 per month.   If Mr Kirkpatrick wanted to know how much was owing that could have been done internally with very simple accounting entries.

[26]     One other inconsistency in the landlord’s statements is conveniently noted in this section.  These are the entries in the November statement highlighted in pink. The corresponding entries on the October statement record three separate payments from the tenant, all on 15 October, of $1,000, $400 and $5,500.  The tenant, from time to time, did make payments for rent from separate sources, and on this occasion there were the three separate payments.  On the October statement the first payment, of $1,000, was credited against invoice 600 which was for rent due on 1 September. The two remaining payments, totalling $5,900, were credited against invoice 619, being for rent due on 1 October.  As can be seen in the annexure, in the November statement the total of $6,900 was credited in full satisfaction of the 1 October rent. That left a notional shortfall of $1,000 for September.  Ms Budgen did cover this in her affidavit, but simply by recording what had happened in the October statement and the changes in the November statement.  There is no explanation as to why this occurred.

Roller door parts: $561.20

[27]     The  third  item  in  Mr  Kirkpatrick’s  summary  of  the  total  said  to  be outstanding when the notice was issued was $561.20 for “Roller door parts (stolen and agreed to be reimbursed)”.  This was the balance of the total of $4,561.20 not paid by the tenant before expiry of the notice.  The tenant denied that there was any agreement that it would pay for missing roller door parts and denied that it had any responsibility in that regard.   Mr Waugh’s evidence was that, under the lease, the landlord had agreed to supply and install a second roller door at the premises.  He said that when that work was being undertaken the tenant was preparing the premises for occupation and the roller door installer complained that there were some parts missing.  There was no further evidence from the landlord challenging this.  In the end this sum was paid by the tenant, but the tenant’s liability under the lease is far from clear.

The balance of the notice: $1,142.71

[28]     This total is made out of two invoices from the landlord for power: invoice

606 recorded in both statements at 4 September 2014 and invoice 650 recorded in the 13 November 2014 statement at 6 November.   The total was paid before the

notice expired.   However, on the evidence the amount owing on the 6 November invoice – $480.46 – was not in default under the lease because it appears that the tenant did not get notice of this sum until it received the notice on 14 November.

When was the total paid?

[29]     The notice expired at 5:00 pm on 1 December 2014.  By then the tenant had paid the November rent of $6,900 and the two power invoices of $1,142.71, leaving a balance of $4,561.20 for the four rent short payments and the roller door parts.  On

4 December, following communications between the solicitors for the parties, the landlord  offered  to  withdraw  the  notice  on  condition  that  the  tenant  did  the following:

(a)       Paid $11,461.20 for the Upper D premises by 10 December 2014.

This was the balance of $4,561.20 in the notice plus 1 December rent of $6,900.

(b)      Paid $14,807.48 by 10 December for the Upper C premises.

(c)      By 17 December entered into a new lease for the Upper D premises at an annual rental of $102,000 plus  GST.   This compared with the current rent of $72,000 plus GST per annum, with provision for an increase to $84,000 plus GST per annum in November 2016.

(d)By 20  January 2015  provided  “an  acceptable  form  of  bank  bond guaranteeing payment of not less than three months rent and outgoings” for the Upper D lease.

[30]     On 5 December 2014 the tenant’s solicitors sent a cheque to the landlord’s solicitors for the balance of $4,561.20.  This was sent on the basis that the payment was made without prejudice to the tenant’s contention that the sum was not outstanding.  There was a challenge to other matters.  The letter was sent by email at

9:37 am followed by delivery of the original and the cheque by courier.  There was a request  for  an  undertaking  from  the  landlord  by midday on  that  day,  Friday 5

December, that the landlord would not take any steps to re-enter the property in reliance on the notice. The letter concluded:

We comment that there is an element of extortion in your client’s demands by endeavouring to negotiate more favourable lease terms.  This is an abuse of process of the Property Law Act 2007 and would be looked upon unfavourably by the High Court.

[31]     The landlord declined to provide the undertaking sought.

[32]     On the afternoon of Friday, 5 December, the tenant’s solicitors emailed a copy of proceedings to the landlord’s solicitors and approximately an hour later advised that proceedings had been filed for relief against forfeiture and would be called for mention on 8 December.   On 8 December the landlord consented to an interim order restraining cancellation.  The landlord (or the landlord’s solicitors) also banked the cheque for the balance of $4,561.20 on that date.

Evaluation

[33]     Under clause 6.1 of the lease the landlord is entitled to recover costs incurred with its solicitor provided they are costs properly incurred and incurred for the purpose of enforcing or  attempting to  enforce a right,  remedy or power of the landlord under the lease.   In my judgment the only point at which this provision applies is in respect of the issuing of the notice and in that regard only in a limited way.  The notice was for a sum of $12,603.91.  But on the earlier analysis, the only amount clearly overdue when the notice was issued was $662.25 being one of the power invoices.  Costs recoverable on a contractual basis for that item can only be modest and will be taken into account in the overall assessment.

[34]     I am not persuaded that the landlord is entitled to recover any of its solicitor’s costs for action taken after service of the notice.  The reasons are in large measure contained in the factual narrative and my analysis of it.  Before the notice expired the tenant had paid more than the sum that was contractually overdue at the date of issue of the notice.  The total paid by the tenant was $8,042.71 ($6,900 + $1,142.71) but, as just recorded, the only sum overdue in contractual terms was $662.25.  The steps taken by or on behalf of the landlord after that date were not steps taken for the enforcement or attempted enforcement of rights, remedies or powers under the lease.

[35]     The question that remains is whether the tenant is entitled to costs and, if so, the category of costs and quantum.

[36]     The tenant’s argument that there should be increased costs because of failure by the landlord to file a notice of opposition and affidavits by particular dates is of no real consequence.  The other contentions do have substance.  In my judgment, the landlord’s refusal to provide an unconditional undertaking not to re-enter after it had received the payment of $8,042.71, and with that refusal coupled with the offer that was made, provides ample grounds for an order for increased costs in terms of r 14.6(3) and could justify an order for indemnity costs in terms of r 14.6(4)(a).  I will identify the main points, which come from the factual narrative, but without endeavouring to slot them into particular paragraphs in the rules:

(a)      Once the tenant had paid the total of $8,042.71, before expiry of the notice, the landlord had no right to threaten to re-enter and, additionally, had at that point been paid more than was contractually due under the lease.

(b)The landlord’s conduct in relation to the credits was improper, and that is a conclusion justified by the landlord’s own evidence as to why a statement was issued recording credits, quite apart from my alternative  conclusion that the original intention was to  grant real credits.

(c)      The landlord’s offer in the letter of 4 December (summarised above at [29]) was a response to the tenant’s request which cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds.  It contained a demand for payment of a sum – $11,461.20 – which was not owing or which had not been established to be owing.  The only uncontestable component was rent that had fallen due on 1 December, but it was not overdue.  It included a  demand  in  respect  of  other  premises,  Upper  C.    It  included  a proposal for an increase in rent for Upper D which might reasonably be described as extortionate when compared with the rent that had

been contractually agreed only 12 months before, including provision for a reasonably substantial increase in rent under the lease.

(d)Notwithstanding the landlord’s response, the tenant paid the balance which I have found was not owing.  In spite of that the landlord still declined to give an unconditional undertaking not to re-enter.

(e)      In these circumstances it is not surprising that the tenant filed the application for relief.   In my judgment it was an entirely justifiable step for the tenant to have taken.  And it was an application for relief which in my judgment the tenant would have been entitled to if the landlord, in the end, and belatedly, had not withdrawn its opposition to the critical orders sought by the tenant.

[37]     The tenant’s solicitor’s costs total $15,575.23 (excluding a bill for $1,177 issued on 28 November 2014 and not relating strictly to the proceeding).   The landlord’s solicitor’s costs, including costs for issuing the notice, total $8,813.75, but excluding costs on the application for costs which do appear to have been included, in large measure, in the costs for the tenant.  The difference in the total for the two parties is explained in reasonable measure by the fact that the work required to be undertaken for the tenant in the proceeding itself, and the work actually undertaken compared with the work undertaken for the landlord, was substantially more. However, a more careful analysis of the reasonableness of the total sought for the tenant is not required in the exercise of a discretion of this nature and having regard to the fact that, in the end, the tenant in Mr Bowler’s submissions limited its application to a sum of $10,746. This was a 50% increase on costs on a 2B basis.

[38]     For all of the reasons recorded in this judgment, including what is apparent from the factual narrative and the factual analysis, I am satisfied that an order in favour of the tenant in a sum of $10,000, plus reasonable disbursements, is appropriate and justified in terms of the relevant rules and principles.   This takes account of the extent to which the tenant contributed to the problems it faced in what was, on the most favourable analysis for the tenant, a casual approach to payment on due date.

Result

[39]     There is an order that the respondent pay the applicant legal costs in a sum of

$10,000 together with  reasonable  disbursements  to be fixed, if need be, by the

Registrar.

Woodhouse J

APPENDIX 1

Landlord Statement – 16 October 2014					Landlord Statement – 13 November 2014
Date	Ref	Invoiced	Paid	Balance	Date	Ref	Invoiced	Paid	Balance
1.10.13	Opening Bal	0.00	1.10.13	Opening Bal	0.00
17.10.13	Inv 384 (rent)	6,900.00	6,900.00	17.10.13	Inv 384	6,900.00	6,900.00
17.10.13	Inv 385 (bond)	6,000.00	12,000.00	17.10.13	Inv 385	6,000.00	12,000.00
22.10.13	Inv 384 (rent)	6,900.00	6,000.00	22.10.13	Inv 384	6,900.00	6,000.00
22.10.13	Inv 385 (bond)	6,000	0.00	22.10.13	Inv 385	6,000	0.00
17.12.13	Inv 425	561.20	561.20	17.12.13	Inv 425	561.20	561.20
1.2.14	Inv 484 (rent)	6,900.00	7461.20	1.2.14	Inv 484 (rent)	6,900.00	7461.20
11.2.14	Inv 462 (power)	174.59	7,635.79	11.2.14	Inv 462 (power)	174.59	7,635.79
1.3.14	Inv 485 (rent)	6,900.00	14,535.79	1.3.14	Inv 485 (rent)	6,900.00	14,535.79
4.3.14	Inv 479 (power)	90.32	14,626.11	4.3.14	Inv 479 (power)	90.32	14,626.11
21.3.14	Inv 484 (rent)	1,900.00	12,726.11	21.3.14	Inv 484 (rent)	1,900.00	12,726.11
21.3.14	Inv 484 (rent)	5,000.00	7,726.11	21.3.14	Inv 484 (bal rent)	5,000.00	7,726.11
1.4.14	Inv 501 (rent)	6,900.00	14,626.11	1.4.14	Inv 501 (rent)	6,900.00	14,626.11
8.4.14	Inv 505 (power)	93.48	14,719.59	8.4.14	Inv 505 (power)	93.48	14,719.59
8.4.14	Inv 462 (power)	174.59	14,545.00	8.4.14	Inv 462 (power)	174.59	14,545.00
8.4.14	Inv 479 (power)	90.32	14,454.58	8.4.14	Inv 479 (power)	90.32	14,454.58
8.4.14	Inv 485 (rent)	5,000.00	9,454.68	8.4.14	Inv 485 (rent)	5,000.00	9,454.68
8.4.14	Inv 485 (rent)	1,900.00	7,554.68	8.4.14	Inv 485 (rent)	1,900.00	7,554.68
1.5.14	Inv 521 (rent)	6,900.00	14,454.68	1.5.14	Inv 521 (rent)	6,900.00	14,454.68
2.5.14	Inv 521 (rent)	6,900.00	7,554.68	2.5.14	Inv 521 (rent)	6,900.00	7,554.68
1.6.14	Inv 540 (rent)	6,900.00	14,454.68	1.6.14	Inv 540 (rent)	6,900.00	14,454.68
1.6.14	CN 592	(1,000.00)	13,454.68
3.6.14	Inv 505 (power)	93.45	13,361.20	3.6.14	Inv 505 (power)	93.45	14,361.20
3.6.14	Inv 540 (rent)	5,900.00	7,461.20	3.6.14	Inv 540 (rent)	5,900.00	8,461.20
4.6.14	Inv 542 (power)	263.47	7,724.67	4.6.14	Inv 542 (power)	263.47	8,724.67
1.7.14	Inv 562 (rent)	6,900.00	14,624.67	1.7.14	Inv 562 (rent)	6,900.00	15,624.67
1.7.14	CN 593	(1,000.00)	13,624.67
2.7.14	Inv 564 (power)	274.32	13,898.99	2.7.14	Inv 564 (power)	274.32	15,898.99
3.7.14	Inv 562 (rent)	5,900.00	7,998.99	3.7.14	Inv 562 (rent)	5,900.00	9,998.99
22.7.14	Inv 572 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	9,148.99
22.7.14	Inv 572 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	7,998.99
1.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	6,900.00	14,898.99	1.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	6,900.00	16,898.99
1.8.14	CN 594	(1,000.00)	13,898.99
13.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	5,000.00	8,898.99	13.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	900.00	15,998.99
13.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	900.00	7,998.99	13.8.14	Inv 582 (rent)	5,000.00	10,998.99
18.8.14	Inv 590 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	6,848.99
22.8.14	Inv 590 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	7,998.99
1.9.14	Inv 600 (rent)	6,900.00	14,898.99	1.9.14	Inv 600 (rent)	6,900.00	17,898.99
4.9.14	Inv 606 (power)	662.25	15,561.24	4.9.14	Inv 606 (power)	662.25	18,561.24
22.9.14	Inv 616 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	16,711.24
22.9.14	Inv 600 (rent)	5,900.00	10,811.24	22.9.14	Inv 600 (rent)	5,900.00	12,661.24
22.9.14	Inv 616 (rent U/C)	1,150.00	9,661.24
1.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	6,900.00	16,561.24	1.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	6,900.00	19,561.24
2.10.14	Inv 542 (power)	263.47	16,297.77	2.10.14	Inv 542 (power)	263.47	19,297.77
2.10.14	Inv 564 (power)	274.32	16,023.45	2.10.14	Inv 564 (power)	274.32	19,023.45
15.10.14	Inv 629 (U/C)	10,610.08	26,633.53
15.10.14	Inv 600 (rent)	1,000.00	25,633.53
15.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	400.00	23,233.53	15.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	1,400.00	17,623.45
15.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	5,500.00	19,733.53	15.10.14	Inv 619 (rent)	5,500.00	12,123.45
28.10.14	Inv 644 (rent)	6,900.00	5,223.45
1.11.14	Inv 644 (rent)	6,900.00	12,123.45
6.11.14	Inv 650 (power)	480.46	12,603.91