Taikorea Properties Limited Partnership v CZC Group Limited
[2019] NZHC 1175
•27 May 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE
CIV 2019-454-13
[2019] NZHC 1175
BETWEEN TAIKOREA PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Applicant
AND
CZC GROUP LIMITED
Respondent
Hearing: On Papers Counsel:
B J Marten for Applicant
Judgment:
27 May 2019
JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J
[1] The applicant is landlord and the respondent is tenant of commercial premises in Palmerston North. The tenant has not paid any rent since October 2018 nor has responded to any formal processes. Notices under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) were served and no opposition has been filed or communication received.
[2] The applicant filed an originating application for cancellation of the lease and possession under s 244 of the PLA.
[3] Shortly before a scheduled teleconference on 29 April 2019, the Court received an email (not copied to the applicant) from Mr Zijie Zhou, who described himself as the shareholder and director of the respondent company. He advised that he was now in funds and was returning to New Zealand to sort matters out and pay outstanding debts. He sought an adjournment to 31 May 2019. Simon France J noted in a minute dated 29 April 2019 that the Court had discretion under HCR 19.10 to determine the
TAIKOREA PROPERTIES LTD PARTNERSHIP v CZC GROUP LTD [2019] NZHC 1175 [27 May 2019]
matter in the respondent’s absence, adjourn it or strike it out. He proposed to adjourn it, on the condition that the respondent had three weeks to sort it out otherwise “the orders will almost certainly be made”.
[4] Simon France J accordingly directed counsel for the applicant to update the Court by 24 May 2019 and to advise whether the orders are still sought. If Mr Zhou wants to contest the applications, he would require legal representation. This minute was sent to Mr Zhou and the applicant.
[5] In accordance with this direction, on 24 May the applicant filed an updating memorandum. It advises says that the applicant wrote to the respondent’s accountant on 16 May and sent follow up emails to the accountant on 22 May and to Mr Zhou on 23 May. No response was received until, on the afternoon of 23 May, the respondent’s accountant telephoned counsel for the applicant and indicated that the respondent wanted an opportunity to sell its stock, surrender its bond, pay the outstanding balance and hand possession of the premises over to the applicant on 1 July. This proposal was then confirmed by email exchange.
[6]The current position is:
(a)No payments have been received from the respondent. An updated statement of the amount owing is attached to the 24 May memorandum.
The debt is now $111,674.70.1
(b)The respondent has still taken no steps to address outstanding rent and has only contacted the applicant one day before the deadline set by the Court. Nothing has been filed in Court on the respondent’s behalf.
1 There is a further email chain between the Registry and counsel for the applicants which includes invoices for legal fees and additional disbursements, increasing the legal costs claimed from
$13,684.28 to $14,274.28. This would bring up the overall amount sought from $111,674.70 to
$112,262.70.
[7] That said, the applicant has expressed some sympathy for the respondent’s desire to sell or otherwise remove its stock to ensure orderly handover of the premises, and in the amended orders now sought proposes 1 July 2019 as the date of cancellation of the lease and transfer of the premises back to the applicant’s possession. But to secure its position, the applicant still seeks orders from the Court as indicated by Simon France J in his minute.
[8] In light of the above I accept that the amended orders are appropriate. I make orders in terms of annexure B to the applicant’s memorandum of counsel dated 24 May 2019 (with updated costs in accordance with the email to which I have just referred) accordingly.
Rebecca Ellis J
0
0
0