Monaco Management Limited v Handy 4 Limited

Case

[2014] NZHC 1143

27 May 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-442-28 [2014] NZHC 1143

BETWEEN

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Plaintiffs

AND

HANDY 4 LIMITED First Defendant

MARGARET BARTLETT and

ALAN BARTLETT Second Defendants

2210 DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Third Defendant

MICHAEL EDMONDS and

ANGELA WINTER Fourth Defendants

VAUGHAN WORKMAN Fifth Defendant

MARIANO BOFFA Sixth Defendant

ZEZORA HOLDINGS LIMITED Seventh Defendant

PETER and AUDREY HEAVEN Eighth Defendants

MICHAEL BOUTLE and

ROBIN WHALLEY Ninth Defendants

MICHAEL and INGA COTTON Tenth Defendants

ALROD LIMITED Eleventh Defendant

DAVID SCOTT Twelfth Defendant

MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED v HANDY 4 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1143 [27 May 2014]

BODY CORPORATE 334302

Thirteenth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

27 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J ON WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION

[1]      I  have  this   morning  received   an   originating   application   by  Monaco Management Limited.  Monaco leases a resort in Nelson from the defendants.  The application is under s 261 of the Property Law Act and it seeks relief against certain of the defendants’ refusal or failure to renew its lease.  There is also a without notice application for interim injunction to prevent the lessors re-entering the leased premises.

[2]      Very briefly, the background is that Monaco leases and manages a hotel complex comprising 22 units on behalf of the defendant lessors (there appear to be other units in the complex that are managed or administered in a different way but the 22 units are currently in issue).  Monaco leases the units and common areas and takes a fee for its management of the complex on behalf of the various unit owners.

[3]      The 10 year lease of the premises expires tomorrow.  There are two further

10 year rights of renewal.  In order to exercise the right of renewal, Monaco should have given three months notice of its intention.  It did not do this.  This failure was, Monaco  says,  inadvertent.    Monaco  has  communicated  with  the  unit  holders belatedly seeking consent to renewal.  Eight have agreed.  One has refused.  Three have indicated they are seeking legal advice.   Three have responded but not confirmed. The remainder have not responded.

[4]      The parties have been in dispute in the past over the administration of the hotel.  Disagreements over management and alleged breaches of the lease went to arbitration and Monaco successfully defended its position.  Other proceedings are on

foot that do not allege breach of the lease.  I do not know their status at this point.  In any event, relationships are testy.

[5]      Monaco advises that it is left with no choice but to seek interim relief to protect its position until its application under s 261 of the Property Law Act can be heard, or all the unit owners have consented.

[6]      I agree that it is in order to grant interim relief.   Monaco clearly has an arguable claim to the benefit of an order under s 261 and the balance of convenience lays with protecting the status quo in the meantime.

[7]      I propose to make the order to remain until further order of this Court, but to direct the Registrar to place this matter in the Chambers list for further consideration. In the meantime, the defendant lessors are to be served with the proceedings with all urgency.

[8]      There will be orders as follows:

(a)      that the defendants (other than the 10th  defendants) are prohibited from re-entering possession of the units at 6 Point Road, Nelson until these proceedings are either determined or discontinued;

(b)the  plaintiff  is  to  serve  the  defendants  with  this  order  and  the proceeding within seven days hereof and file an affidavit in Court providing proof of such service;

(c)      the Registrar is to place the matter in the Judges’ Chambers list in Wellington for Monday 23 June 2014.  The call may be dealt with by AVL if that is more convenient to the parties; and

(d)      costs are reserved.

Williams J

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0