Strong v Hurunui Hotel (2004) Limited [2015] NZHC 1677 (17 July 2015)

Last Updated: 18 August 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000113 [2015] NZHC 1677

BETWEEN	RODGER EDMOND STRONG, NOLA ANN STRONG AND AMELIA LYNETTE SPENCE SIMPSON Applicants
AND	HURUNUI HOTEL (2004) LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	17 July 2015
Appearances:	A N Riches for Applicants J Moss for Respondent
Judgment:	17 July 2015

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J}

[1] In a judgment I gave in this proceeding on 3 June 2015 I granted to the respondent relief against cancellation of the lease of its premises, the Hurunui Hotel, on certain strict conditions. Those conditions were that within 20 working days of the date of that judgment the respondent was to pay by way of security for performance of its redecoration obligations under the lease the sum of $50,000 to be held by the solicitors for the applicants and, within 50 working days of the date of that judgment all redecoration work under the lease was to be carried out in a proper manner.

[2] The first condition noted above was not complied with.

[3] Approximately one week ago this matter was called before me given the default on the part of the respondent in complying with that condition and clearly as an indulgence a further one week to today was provided to the respondent to comply

_{with that condition.}

STRONG v HURUNUI HOTEL (2004) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1677 [17 July 2015]

[4] Today Mr Moss, who appeared as counsel for the respondent, has confirmed that the respondent is unable to make the security payment referred to above and effectively it is not in a position to resist orders sought by the applicant here to cancel the lease and for possession of the premises.

[5] It is acknowledged by both parties that the respondent as tenant has been provided with a significant indulgence in this matter prior to what would be the serious step of cancelling the lease of its hotel premises. Notwithstanding that indulgence and the fact that it is now some 32 days since the relief in my original judgment of 3 June 2015 was granted, the respondent has not been able to take advantage of the indulgence and rectify breaches under the lease and orders made by this Court.

[6] That said, there is a certain inevitability here that the orders sought by the applicant must be made.

[7] Effectively with little opposition from the respondent as Mr Moss for the respondent confirms, the following orders are now made.

(a) An order is made cancelling the lease of the Hurunui Hotel premises from the applicants as landlords to the respondent as tenant.

(b) An order is made granting possession of the Hurunui Hotel premises to the applicants effective immediately.

(c) Notwithstanding the order for possession made above, the respondent is to have until 4 p.m. on Wednesday 22 July 2015 to vacate the hotel premises in the sense of having all its personal belongings and stock from the business removed.

(d) Notwithstanding the order noted above, given that the landlord has a first right of refusal under the lease to purchase the business chattels of the hotel from the respondent, all those business chattels under the lease are to remain in the premises and not be removed at this point

until completion of that matter (be it by purchase of the chattels by the landlord or otherwise) takes place.

(e) An additional order is made at the request of the applicants as landlords that the Hurunui Hotel is to be closed immediately and is not to re-open prior to the time that the respondent vacates the premises on Wednesday next, 22 July 2015.

[8] In the meantime costs with respect to this proceeding are reserved.

[9] Leave is also reserved however for either party on 24 hour’s notice to

approach this Court if additional orders or directions may be required.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Saunders & Co, Christchurch

Jai Moss, Christchurch