Rahal v Sohal Associates Limited - [2025] NZHC 2803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1172

[2025] NZHC [2803]

UNDER the Arbitration Act 1996

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal an arbitration award

BETWEEN

DAVINDER SINGH RAHAL and JIVAN

JYOTI RAHAL as trustees of the Times Trust
Plaintiffs

AND

SOHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 28 August 2025

Appearances:

A T Grant for the Plaintiffs S E Wroe for the Defendant

Judgment:

25 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF MACGILLIVRAY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 September 2025 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Deputy Registrar

………………

Solicitors:
Shortall Lawyers, Auckland Pidgeon Judd, Auckland

RAHAL v SOHAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED [2025] NZHC [2803] [25 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Davinder Rahal and Jivan Rahal, as trustees of the Times Trust (the Trustees), seek leave to appeal from partial awards made by Royden Hindle as arbitrator of disputes between the trustees and Sohal Associates Ltd (Sohal).

[2] If granted leave to appeal, the plaintiffs would seek orders on appeal varying the awards.

Background

[3] The trustees own a commercial property at 736 Great South Road, Manukau. By deed of lease dated 1 April 2020 (the lease), the trustees leased to Sohal “the premises and the carparks (if any) described in the First Schedule” for a term of five years with three rights of renewal. Schedule 1 describes the premises as “all of the landlord’s building at 736 Great South Road, Manukau” and the carparks as “common shared parking to be allocated by the landlord from time to time”.

[4] Sohal operates a restaurant business from the premises. The uncovered carparking surrounding the premises are used by its staff and customers.

[5] Disputes developed between the trustees and Sohal, including over rent, outgoings, maintenance, and the use of the carparks. In 2022, the parties commenced arbitration and appointed Royden Hindle as arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his first partial award in May 2023, which determined Sohal’s counterclaims against the Trustees. Davinder Rahal explains in his affidavit that the Trustees did not participate in this first stage of the arbitration process due to lack of funds and Mr Rahal’s health issues. He explains that once his health and financial position improved, the Trustees re-engaged in the arbitration and pursued the Trustees’ claims against Sohal.

[6] The arbitrator determined the Trustees’ claims in his third partial award.1 In his fourth partial award, he awarded costs to Sohal on the basis that it had been the substantially successful party with respect to the third partial award.

1 The second partial award addressed costs on the first partial award.

[7] Only two of the Trustees’ claims against Sohal are relevant to the application for leave to appeal against the third partial award. The first relates to Sohal’s right to use the carparks at the property and the second to Sohal’s obligation to pay for property management fees as outgoings.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rahal v Sohal Associates Limited 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: [2025] NZHC 2803
Decision Date: 25 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahal v Sohal Associates Limited involves an application for leave to appeal an arbitration award made between the Trustees of the Times Trust (Davinder Singh Rahal and Jivan Jyoti Rahal) and Sohal Associates Limited. The Trustees sought leave to appeal the third and fourth partial awards made by the arbitrator, Royden Hindle, regarding disputes over the use of carparks and the payment of property management fees as outgoings under a lease agreement. The background of the case details the lease of commercial property at 736 Great South Road, Manukau, where Sohal operates a restaurant. The Trustees sought to convert the carparks into paid parking and to recover property management fees from Sohal, but the arbitrator dismissed these claims. The Trustees argue that the arbitrator's interpretation of the lease terms and the evidence regarding the outgoings claim contain errors of law that substantially affect their rights. The legal issues before the court were whether the Trustees' proposed appeals involved questions of law that could substantially affect the rights of the parties and, if so, whether the discretionary factors favoured granting leave to appeal. The court found that while the interpretation of the lease terms concerning the carparks was a question of law, the Trustees' challenge did not present a strong indication of error and did not warrant leave to appeal. The court also determined that the outgoings issue did not involve a question of law that could substantially affect the rights of the parties, as the arbitrator's decision was based on the evidence presented and the reasonableness of the claimed fees. The court exercised its discretion against granting leave to appeal on both the carpark and outgoings issues, resulting in the dismissal of the Trustees' application for leave to appeal the third and fourth partial awards. Sohal is entitled to costs for the application.

Orders