College Property Holdings NZ Limited Partnership v Leem

[2025] NZHC 2687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-000320

[2025] NZHC 2687

IN THE MATTER

of an application under sections 244, 245 and 251 of the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN

COLLEGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Applicant

AND

SUJONG LEEM

Respondent

Hearing:

15 September 2025

Appearances:

R M Norris for Applicant

No appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 September 2025 at 12.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

COLLEGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS NZ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v LEEM [2025] NZHC 2687
[16 September 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 The applicant seeks orders cancelling a lease and for possession of the property at 133 Harewood Road, Papanui, Christchurch (the property).

[2]                 The application was called before me in the duty judge list on 15 September 2025.

Factual background

[3]                 The background is set out in the affidavits of Lauchlan Andrew Chisholm, sworn 20 May 2025 and of Henry Parker Hambleton, sworn 14 August 2025.

[4]                 The applicant is the owner of the property.1 The applicant purchased the property on 1 April 2019, subject to a registered leasehold interest, described by identifier L9492607.1 (the lease).

[5]                 The lease commenced on 1 July 2013 for an initial term of 21 years, and with subsequent extensions to the term. The lease was originally entered into by the previous owners of the property, as lessor, and the previous occupier of the property, Ik Pyo Jeon as lessee. As I will return to, Mr Jeon is the father of the respondent in these proceedings, Sujon Leem.

[6]                 Since 5 June 2015, the respondent has been the registered owner of the leasehold title under the lease. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the current rent is

$13,000 per annum.

[7]                 The application to this Court is made on grounds as set out in the application, as follows:

The respondent failed to pay rent due under the [l]ease and as at 21 January 2025 owed the sum of $16,210.26 in rental arrears under the [l]ease.

The applicant has not been able to serve on the respondent a Property Law Act Notice pursuant to s 245 of the Property Law Act 2007 (the Notice). The applicant reasonably believes the respondent is no longer in New Zealand.

1      Described as Identifier CB18B/1343 (Canterbury Land Registration District) and legal description Lot 16 Deposited Plan 14835.

The applicant has served a copy of the Notice on the tenant currently residing in the [p]roperty making demand for payment of the amount of the rental arrears, interest of $1,057.95 and reasonable legal costs totalling $2,200.00. The demand sought payment within 10 working days of the date of service of the Notice otherwise the applicant reserved its right to cancel the [l]ease according to s 244 of the Property Law Act 2007.

Neither the respondent nor the tenant have paid the sum demanded in the Notice, and therefore are in default of the Notice.

Procedural background

[8]                 There were issues serving the proceedings, as the respondent appears now to be residing overseas but with no known address or contact details.

[9]                 By minute of 9 September 2025, Dunningham J granted an order for substituted service upon the property managers of the property.2 The minute records that business had confirmed they managed the subject property on behalf of the respondent, although the particular property manager said he “could not divulge any personal information of Sujong Leem”. The Judge was satisfied the continued management of the property by the property manager suggested he would be likely to bring the relevant documents to the notice of the respondent.

[10]             Dunningham J also noted an unsolicited affidavit of Mr Jeon, who stated he is the father of the respondent and confirmed his son has been residing in Korea since 2023. For reasons set out in the minute, Dunningham J was satisfied service was effected on the respondent on 9 August 2025, that date being when an email was received from the property manager confirming receipt of the originating application.

[11]             Prior to the call in the duty judge list, the registrar received a further unsolicited affidavit from Mr Jeon dated 11 September 2025 (second affidavit) and, on the morning of the hearing, the registrar received a copy of an email sent on Saturday   13 September 2025, apparently from Mr Jeon to counsel for the applicant, setting out Mr Jeon’s entreaties to counsel to “demonstrate our commitment to resolving this matter” indicating an intention to make a “demonstration payment immediately” and referring to a request to the court for an adjournment of the proceedings.  Within the

2      College Property Holdings NZ Ltd Partnership  v  Leem  HC Christchurch  CIV-2025-409-320, 9 September 2025.

email correspondence chain the response of counsel for the applicant confirms that absent payment in full together with all interest and legal costs incurred, the applicant intended to proceed with the application at the hearing on 15 September.

[12]             The content of the email chain reflected in part the second affidavit Mr Jeon had earlier sent to the court, in which he purported to act as his son’s “authorized representative” and sought adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 15 September 2025.

[13] The second affidavit claimed there had been limited time to seek legal assistance in response to the proceedings and claimed bona fide intention to pay (or part pay) outstanding sums. These matters, which are not raised though counsel, must be seen in context of the procedural history as recorded by Dunningham J, and finding that the respondent has been on notice of the proceedings since, at latest, 9 August 2025. Further and as noted, the proceedings arise out of outstanding payments under the lease as at 21 January 2025. The evidence before me indicates the Property Law Act notice of default referred to at [7] above was served on the then tenant of the property on 19 March 2025.

The hearing

[14]             Mr Norris appeared for the applicant at the hearing. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.

[15]             Although Mr Norris had not received a copy of Mr Jeon’s second affidavit, of 11 September, when provided a copy he confirmed the contents of the affidavit were consistent in general terms with the requests made by Mr Jeon to the applicant. That is, seeking adjournment and expressing intention to make immediate payment/part- payment purportedly on behalf of the respondent. Mr Norris confirmed he had confirmed the position with his instructing solicitors prior to the hearing. They advised no payment had been received.

[16]Counsel’s instructions, accordingly, were to proceed on the application.

Decision

[17]             Having reviewed the application, the memorandum of counsel and the affidavits of Messrs Chisolm and Hambleton, I am satisfied the application is properly brought and that there should be orders in terms as sought.

[18]There are orders accordingly:

(a)cancellation of Lease L9492607.1 (the lease); and

(b)granting  the  applicant  possession  of  the  property   situated   at  133 Harewood Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053, described as Identifier CB18B/1343 (Canterbury Land Registration District) and legal description Lot 16 Deposited Plan 14835 (the property).

Costs

[19]             The applicant is entitled to costs, which shall be fixed following filing of a memorandum within ten working days of the date of this judgment.

………………………………………

Preston J

Solicitors:

GHP Law Limited, Dunedin

Counsel:

R M Norris, Barrister, Christchurch