The Proprietors of Mawhera Incorporation v Wright
[2025] NZHC 3320
•4 November 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE
CIV-2025-418-14
[2025] NZHC 3320
BETWEEN THE PROPRIETORS OF MAWHERA INCORPORATION
ApplicantAND
KELLY MARGARET WRIGHT
Respondent
Hearing: 15 October 2025 Appearances:
C Mo for Applicant
Respondent in person (via telephone conference)
Judgment:
4 November 2025
JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J
This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2025 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
THE PROPRIETORS OF MAWHERA INCORPORATION v WRIGHT [2025] NZHC 3320 [4 November 2025]
Introduction
[1] This application concerns a “Glasgow lease” in respect of land at 130 Preston Road, Blaketown, Greymouth (the land). The lease is subject to the provisions of the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955 (the Act).
[2] The applicant, The Proprietors of the Mawhera Incorporation, (Mawhera), is the registered proprietor of the land.
[3] The respondent, Ms Wright, was the registered proprietor of a leasehold interest in the land, although that lease expired on 30 June 2024 and has not been renewed.
The application
[4] In July 2025, the applicant made an on notice application seeking the following orders:
(a)cancelling the memorandum of lease dated 1 July 2003 between the applicant and the respondent;
(b)directing the applicant is entitled to possession of the land;
(c)directing that the applicant is entitled to effect a sale of the respondent’s leasehold interest by public auction or private tender; and
(d)directing that the applicant is to pay the proceeds of sale of the leasehold interest to the respondent, less rental arrears and interest, the costs of sale and legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant as a result of the respondent’s default under the terms of the lease.
[5] The basis for the application was that Ms Wright had failed to pay rent in accordance with the lease, and a Property Law Act notice had been issued under s 245 of the Property Law Act 2007 requiring her to remedy the fault, but she had failed to do so. Details of the defaults were set out in an affidavit of Ms Rachel Scott, the applicant’s operations manager, sworn on 6 June 2025. However, in recognition that
the consequences of cancellation for Ms Wright included forfeiture of any interest she had in the improvements on the land (being a dwelling and a shed), it was proposed that Ms Wright would be paid the net proceeds of sale of the leasehold rights, noting this was what was ordered to occur in Proprietors of Wakatu v Curnow.1
[6] On 1 August 2025 Associate Judge Paulsen made orders allowing the application to proceed by way of originating application and directing Ms Wright to be served with all papers filed in the proceeding and, if she wished to be heard on the application, to file notice of that intention by 11 September 2025.
[7] Ms Wright was served on 12 August 2025, including with the interlocutory orders made by Associate Judge Paulsen, and an affidavit of service was duly filed. By 16 September 2025, no steps had been taken by Ms Wright and Associate Judge Lester directed the matter be set down for a formal proof hearing.
[8] The date of that formal proof hearing being 21 October 2025 was advised to Ms Wright. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled to 2.15 pm on 15 October 2025. Ms Mo, counsel for the applicant, confirms that both dates were notified to Ms Wright, but no formal opposition was filed.
[9] However, on the morning of the date of the hearing, Ms Wright made contact with the Court, advising she opposed the application and she sought to be heard at the hearing.
[10] Out of an abundance of caution, although noting she had not filed any opposition to the application and had no automatic right to be heard unless I granted leave to oppose the application out of time, I allowed Ms Wright to appear remotely. This was to allow me to consider the reasons for not filing an intention to be heard in the timeframe directed and to assess the merits of any grounds of opposition she wished to raise.
1 Proprietors of Wakatu v Curnow [2014] NZHC 2782.
The hearing
[11] In advance of the hearing Ms Mo, counsel for the applicant, filed a further affidavit from Ms Rachel Scott, Mawhera’s operations manager, updating on recent conversations had with Ms Wright and the current state of outstanding obligations under the lease. In her affidavit, Ms Scott states that previously Ms Wright had said she did not want to renew the lease. Mawhera understood she had moved out of the property and stopped communicating with them over the rental arrears. However, very recently, Ms Wright made contact with Ms Scott offering to catch up on the unpaid rent. Ms Scott says it was proposed to Ms Wright that if she agreed to the orders sought in Court (that is, that the lease was sold, her outstanding obligations under the lease paid off, along with legal costs), then “we may not need to attend Court”. She says Ms Wright responded saying she did not want the property sold because she had purchased the house with her late father and had an emotional attachment to it.
[12] While Ms Scott says she considered whether to allow Ms Wright to renew the lease (noting that it was now realised that the lease had expired in 2024 and no steps had been taken to renew it), in the end, she decided not to, given Mawhera has always had problems with Ms Wright paying the rent and has had to constantly remind Ms Wright to pay rent arrears or rate arrears. Ms Scott annexes to her affidavit a file note showing Mawhera has had to chase Ms Wright up for outstanding rent and rates, on multiple occasions.
[13]Ms Scott says that up until the date the lease expired, the total rent arrears are
$2,800. She also says that Ms Wright owes a total of $1,798 in rates arrears as of July 2024 to the West Coast Regional Council and rates arrears for the Greymouth District Council show that Ms Wright owes a total of $3,124.63 as of July 2024.
Submissions for Mawhera
[14] Ms Mo filed written submissions for the formal proof hearing. In it she detailed that Ms Wright had been served with a notice that complied with ss 245 and 249 of the Property Law Act as a consequence of her failure to pay overdue rent and rates as required under the terms of the lease. Ms Wright had not complied with the
Property Law Act notice. This resulted in the current application being made to cancel the lease.
[15] Ms Mo points out that Ms Wright had taken no steps to renew the lease, and was repeatedly in arrears in both rent and rates. Although Ms Wright has since made some payments towards the rates arrears, Mawhera was not willing to renew the lease as it did not have trust and confidence in Ms Wright to pay off the arrears and also to keep up with future rental and rates payments. For that reason, Mawhera wished to pursue its application.
Submissions by Ms Wright
[16] Ms Wright addressed the hearing orally. She said she did not know she had to file anything in advance of the hearing, which is why she had not done so. Ms Wright took issue with a statement in Ms Scott’s second affidavit where it was said Ms Wright had been asked if she wanted to renew the lease and she had said she did not want to. Ms Wright said that she had never said she did not want to renew the lease.
[17] In response to questions from the Court, Ms Wright disclosed that she had moved out of the property 16 years ago. Since then it had been occupied by her ex-husband and his girlfriend. However, they had moved out five years ago and it had been unoccupied since then. She said they were planning to do the house up and sell it.
[18] While Ms Wright accepted she had been repeatedly in arrears with rent in the past, she said she had done everything asked of her by Mawhera in order to catch up with rent and rates arrears and she should be allowed to renew the lease.
Amendment of the application
[19] In light of the discovery that Ms Wright’s lease had expired in 2024 and it had not been renewed, it transpired that Ms Wright only had a right to occupy the land under s 41 of the Act, so long as she pays the rent and other obligations. I therefore allowed Ms Mo to file an amended application and to serve that on Ms Wright.
Ms Wright said she did not want an opportunity to respond to any amended application.
[20]The amended application seeks the following orders.
1.1Directing that the Applicant is entitled to possession of its land contained on Record of Title 542222, comprising Lot 8 Deposited Plan 227 (130 Preston Road, Blaketown, Greymouth);
1.2Directing that the Applicant is entitled to effect a sale of the Respondent’s interest in the improvements in accordance with the procedure set out in section 38 of the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955 immediately; and
1.3The Applicant is to pay the proceeds of sale of the improvement interest:
(a)Less the remaining rental arrears due of $1,080.00 as at the date of expiry of lease of 1 July 2024; and
(b)Less the total balance of the West Coast Regional Council Rates due as at the date of expiry of the lease on 1 July 2024 of $2,216.06; and
(c)Less interest on the remaining rental arrears due of $1,080.00 at a rate of 10% per annum from 1 July 2024 until the date that the improvement interest is sold pursuant to clause 16 of the Memorandum of Lease; and
(d)Less the reasonable costs arising from and incidental to the sale of the Respondent’s interest in the improvements; and
(e)Less the Applicant’s legal costs and disbursements arising from and incidental to the Respondent’s default of the Lease and from this Application as follows;
(i)Legal costs totalling $5,370.50 incl. GST; and
(ii)Disbursements totalling $2,174.00 incl. GST.
1.4If the Respondent’s interest in the improvements is not sold by 31 December 2025, rent will continue to accrue at the rate reserved by the former lease at $2,800 per annum in accordance with section 41 of the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955 until such times as when the interest in the improvements is sold and any rent accrued from 1 January 2026 until the date the improvements are sold will be deducted from the sales proceeds; and
1.5Reserving leave for the Applicant to revert to the Court for such Orders as may be required with respect to the above directions sought.
The law
[21] The applicant seeks to cancel the lease under s 251 of the Property Law Act 2007 and has made the appropriate application under s 244 and has served it on the lessee as required by ss 245 and 249. Despite the fact the lease terminated in July 2024, I note the lease is deemed to continue pursuant to s 41 of the Act. For the avoidance of doubt, I think it preferable to treat the application as an application to cancel the lease.
[22] Having received the application, this Court has discretion whether to make an order cancelling the lease.2 I note that in exercising that discretion the acceptance of rent by the lessor after notice of intention to cancel the lease has been given does not operate as a waiver of the lessor’s rights.3
[23] If the Court makes an order cancelling a lease, it may provide for the cancellation to take effect either on the making of the order or on a later specified date.4 The Court may also:5
(a)order the lessee to pay the rent up to the date of cancellation or any later date on which the lessee yields up possession;
(b)order the lessee to pay reasonable compensation for the breach;
(c)impose on the lessee or the lessor any other condition that it thinks fit.
[24] A lessee who wishes to oppose an order for cancellation of a lease may apply to the Court for relief against cancellation.6 In this case, no such application has been made. That said, I have considered whether anything raised by Ms Wright should point against the orders being made or be reflected in the terms of the orders sought.
2 Property Law Act, s 251(1).
3 Section 250.
4 Section 244(3).
5 Section 251(2).
6 Section 253(1).
Discussion
[25] Although Ms Wright has not adequately explained why she did not file any opposition to the application by 11 September 2025 as directed by Associate Judge Paulsen, I grant her leave to oppose the application out of time given she is self-represented and given the significance of losing the leasehold interest in the land and therefore the ownership of the structures on it. Furthermore, there was no prejudice to the applicant in allowing the extension of time.
[26] The applicant has satisfied me that Ms Wright is in breach of her obligations under the lease ending on 30 June 2024, and under a deemed lease pursuant to s 41 of the Act since that date, because she is in arrears with both rates and rental. Furthermore, as the evidence of Ms Scott shows, Ms Wright has regularly been in arrears since at least 2018, noting the file note annexed to Ms Scott’s affidavit sworn 15 October 2025 which records Ms Wright being in arrears, and being warned that legal proceedings would issue on at least two occasions.
[27] Ms Wright is still in arrears both in terms of rental and rates at the time of hearing as set out in Ms Scott’s affidavit. Despite Ms Wright’s promise to rectify the arrears, her history of defaults is extensive. I have no reason to believe this will be different in the future.
[28] While Ms Wright says she is attached to the property because she bought it with her late father, she has not occupied it for 16 years.7 Furthermore, she explains that if she were allowed to renew the lease, she and her former husband would be renovating the property and selling it. This acknowledgement tells against Ms Wright’s claims to be emotionally attached to the property. Here, her interest in the property is as an asset with some value that she hopes to realise through sale.
[29] In that regard, I consider her interest is adequately protected by the orders Mawhera seeks. The orders sought reflect those made in Proprietors of Wakatu v Curnow, and seek to ensure that Ms Wright’s interest in the value of the dwelling is
7 That, of course, may constitute a further breach of the lease as she is not permitted to sublet the property without Mawhera’s consent.
not lost on cancellation of the lease. Instead, on the sale of the leasehold interest and after payment of all amounts owing to the applicant, the applicant will account to Ms Wright for the balance.8
[30] I am satisfied that that is just and equitable in the circumstances to make the orders as sought in the amended application. They recognise Mawhera’s entitlement to all outstanding payments under the lease and the costs of bringing these legal proceedings, while ensuring that Ms Wright is entitled to any surplus on the sale of the leasehold estate.
[31]Accordingly, I make orders as sought as set out in [20] above.
[32]Orders accordingly.
Solicitors:
Saunders & Co., Christchurch
Copy to:
Ms Wright, Greymouth
8 Proprietors of Wakatu v Curnow, above n 1.
0