GP96 Limited v PVG Securities Trustee Limited

In this case, GP96 Limited is appealing two separate decisions made by the High Court at Christchurch in proceedings involving the same property at 96 Lichfield Street, Christchurch. In the first appeal (CA258/2019), GP96 is appealing the High Court’s decision to grant an application by PVG Securities Trustee Limited to remove a caveat GP96 had lodged against one of two titles to the property, and to order that GP96 not relodge a caveat against either of the titles to the property without the leave of the Court. In the second appeal (CA272/2019), GP96 is appealing the High Court’s decision to decline to enlarge orders made by Chisholm J in 2011 by restraining F M Custodians Limited from settling an agreement for sale and purchase relating to the property, and from discharging or authorising any discharge of its mortgages over the property, or from assigning or registering any transfer of those mortgages. The Court was required to decide the following issues: (a) whether GP96 has a reasonably arguable claim to a valid and current interest under the lease; (b) whether GP96 is entitled to an injunction against FMC prohibiting it from participating in the sale process; and (c) whether PVG was entitled to the order removing the caveat. The Court found that GP96 had a reasonably arguable claim that there was a valid assignment of the lease from Livingspace to it, and that the assignment was effective to transfer the leasehold interest to it. The Court also found that it was arguable that such rights as GP96 has under the lease were not terminated by the disclaimer given by LVL’s liquidators on 22 December 2010. However, the Court was not prepared to find that the property was rendered untenantable, and that cl 26.1 was engaged. The Court found that Gendall J’s finding that the lease was terminated because the insurance monies received by the landlord were effectively nil, and consequently inadequate for the repair or reinstatement of the building, was correct. The Court further found that the Judge was correct to lift the interim injunction made in 2011 and to decline GP96’s application to enlarge that order, and to make further orders. The appeal in CA258/2019 is dismissed. The appeal in CA272/2019 is dismissed. In CA258/2019, the appellant must pay costs to each respondent for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. In CA272/2019, the appellant must pay costs to the respondent for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.