Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd

[2021] NZHC 3552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-365

[2021] NZHC 3552

UNDER

s 244 Property Law Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of an application for cancellation of Deed of Lease dated 22 January 2011 and possession

BETWEEN

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD

Applicant

AND

HUM HOSPITALITY LTD

Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

20 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2021 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Winston Wang & Associates (Auckland) for Applicant (Copy to Respondent in person)

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2021] NZHC 3552 [20 December 2021]

[1]                   In my judgment of 11 November 2020,1 I found in favour of Stylo in its claim for unpaid rental. I found Hum to be in arrears with its rental payments to at least the sum of $150,000 and I ordered Hum to pay Stylo that amount on account of arrears of rental.

[2]I went on to state:

[46]      If Hum does pay Stylo $150,000 as aforesaid, then the balance of the arrears of rental and any other arrears of payments due must be identified (including interest on all arrears at the rate of 14 per cent per annum) and paid.

[47]      If the parties cannot agree on quantum then each must file a further affidavit and spreadsheet deposing to its view of what is outstanding and addressing the other party’s spreadsheet where there are differences. The parties are also to file memoranda on how the dispute as to quantum is to be resolved. Stylo’s affidavit and memorandum are to be filed by 14 December 2020. Hum’s affidavit and memorandum are to be filed by 5 February 2021.

[3]Hum paid $150,000 but the parties cannot agree on quantum.

[4]                   There have been subsequently many documents filed and Hum has unsuccessfully sought relief from the Court of Appeal. I will not describe the procedural back and forth because all that remains for me to do now is to quantify the balance of the arrears of rental and other payments owing by Hum to Stylo.

[5]                   Ms Armitage, who is not a lawyer, has applied to represent Hum for this purpose. Stylo does not object to that so long as the issue is one of quantum and not, as Ms Armitage would dearly like it to be, one of liability. Since Ms Armitage also guaranteed the lease and is entitled to be heard on her own behalf anyway, I grant her application to represent Hum. That means I will accept the plethora of documents she has filed in the Court which attempt to deal with how much Hum now owes Stylo.

[6]                   However, I accept Mr Parmenter’s submission that all I am concerned with is quantum. The issue of liability has already been adjudicated. That means that most  of Ms Armitage’s submissions and affidavits relate to matters not relevant to this limited purpose.

1      Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2020] NZHC 2969.

[7]I record that the parties agreed that I should decide this issue on the papers.2

[8]                   I have found Mr Parmenter’s memorandum dated 11 October 2021 to be particularly helpful in summarising the issues and evidence. I also rely on Dr Ooi’s affidavit of  14  December  2020.  I  have  looked  at  the  updated  spreadsheet  (to 12 October 2021) provided by Mr Parmenter and it follows logically from Dr Ooi’s 14 December 2020 affidavit.

[9]                   I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that as at 12 October 2021 the sum owing by Hum to Stylo is $106,184.82 calculated as follows:

As at 12.10.21:
Total owing (rent + opex)	62,196.99
Costs on PLAN	460.00
Interest as above	43,527.83
Total owing 23.9.21	$106,184.82

Decision

[10]I give judgment in favour of Stylo in the sum of $106,184.82.

[11]               Interest on this sum at the contractual interest rate of 14 per cent per annum will accrue until the judgment sum is paid.

[12]               Stylo is entitled to costs. It may file its memorandum by 1 February 2022. Any response by Hum/Ms Armitage is to be filed by 25 March 2022.

Brewer J

2      Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd HC Auckland, CIV-2019-404-365, 21 April 2021 (Minute).