Highgate on Broadway Limited v Devine

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CIV-2012-406-000136 [2012] NZHC 2590

IN THE MATTER OF     the Arbitration Act 1996

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an application for a determination under

Article 16 of the Act

BETWEEN  HIGHGATE ON BROADWAY LIMITED Applicant

ANDARTHUR LAWRENCE MICHAEL DEVINE

Respondent

Hearing:         3 October 2012 at Wellington

Counsel:         D J Clark for Applicant

L P Radich for Respondent

Judgment:      16 October 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 3.00pm on the 16th day of October 2012.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]      The applicant is a landlord.   The respondent was a tenant of the landlord. The landlord asks me to declare that an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to hear and determine  a  dispute  between  the  landlord  and  the  tenant  which  the  tenant  has referred for arbitration.  The landlord also asks me to quash a preliminary decision of

the arbitrator or, in the alternative, stay the arbitration.

HIGHGATE ON BROADWAY LIMITED V DEVINE HC BLE CIV-2012-406-000136 [16 October 2012]

[2]      In this judgment I rule against the landlord.   I have concluded there is no legal impediment to the arbitrator hearing and determining the dispute between the parties.  There may, however, be an issue as to when the arbitrator should undertake his task.  However, I am not prepared to stay the arbitral proceeding.

Background

[3]      The  background  to  the  parties’  dispute  is  fully  traversed  in  reserved

judgments delivered by:

(1)       MacKenzie J on 10 November 2011;  and

(2)       Kós J on 10 September 2012.

The first of these judgments is subject to an appeal.  The second judgment dealt with security for costs in relation to the proceeding that I have to determine.  Kós J found in favour of the tenant.

[4]      The  tenant  leased  premises  in  the  landlord’s  building  in  High  Street, Blenheim from which the tenant conducted a hairdressing business.  The lease was for a five year period from 1 September 2006 with a right of renewal for a further five year term.

[5]      In November 2010 there were discussions between the landlord and tenant over renewal of the lease.  Those discussions appeared to have resulted in agreement to renew the lease.  However, the landlord prepared a new lease on terms that were different from the existing lease.  No new lease was finalised.

[6]      The tenant fell behind in paying his rent.  The landlord gave notice that if the outstanding rent was not paid within ten working days the lease would be cancelled. That notice did not comply with the requirements of s 2451 of the Property Law Act

2007 (the Act).  A second notice was sent that gave the tenant until 4 August 2011 to

pay the rent arrears.  The rent arrears were paid to the landlord’s then solicitors at

1      Which concerns the cancellation of a lease for breach of the covenant to pay rent.

9.30am on 4 April 2011.   However, on 5 August 2011 the landlord cancelled the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Highgate on Broadway Limited v Devine and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NZHC 2590
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Highgate on Broadway Limited v Devine involves a landlord, Highgate on Broadway Limited, and a tenant, Arthur Lawrence Michael Devine. The dispute centers on the landlord's cancellation of a lease for breach of the covenant to pay rent. The tenant sought relief against the forfeiture of the lease and damages for the landlord's wrongful cancellation. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the arbitration agreement between the parties remained valid and whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The landlord argued that the tenant's decision to seek relief in the High Court meant the tenant had waived their right to arbitration.

Collins J determined that the arbitration agreement remained valid and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The court found that the tenant's mistaken inclusion of a damages claim in the High Court proceedings did not prevent them from pursuing the arbitration clause in the lease. Furthermore, the court held that the tenant's claims under the Property Law Act 2007 could not be resolved by arbitration, but this did not preclude the tenant from seeking damages in arbitration. The court also dismissed the landlord's argument that the presence of the landlord's former solicitors as a third party impacted the arbitration agreement.

The court concluded that there was no legal impediment to the arbitrator hearing and determining the dispute. While it was sensible to defer the substantive arbitration hearing until after the Court of Appeal determined the landlord's appeal, the parties should proceed with preliminary steps in arbitration. The court dismissed the landlord's application, and the tenant was awarded costs on a scale 2B basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.