Tenant says a lockout forced it to agree to quit premises it had held for 15 years
The High Court has stopped a landlord from retaking a Wanaka lakefront bar after locking out the tenant over $3,240 in disputed rent.
In Lalaland Wanaka Ltd v Cole [2026] NZHC 2881, handed down on 18 September 2026, the court granted Lalaland Wanaka Ltd (Lalaland) an interim injunction without notice. The landlord did not take part in the hearing.
Lalaland had run a lounge bar from the premises for 15 years, with about three years left on its lease. On 2 June 2026, the landlord mailed a notice to the home of Lalaland's director, giving the company 10 working days to pay $3,240 in rent arrears. The director, then overseas, said that he never received it. Lalaland had claimed since early 2024 that it had overpaid rent and operating expenses by $18,666.34.
On 19 June, one of the landlords entered the premises, changed the locks and posted a re-entry notice. The director said that he paid the arrears that day, but that the landlord refused to return the keys unless Lalaland agreed by email to end the lease. He said that he agreed to leave by the end of September because he feared that the business would not survive a weekend closure. He later withdrew that agreement, alleging duress.
In an 18 August letter, the landlord maintained that the lease had ended lawfully and that the 19 June exchange was "a commercial negotiation following the landlord's exercise of its rights." It denied that the agreement to end the lease resulted from duress or any illegitimate pressure. It also raised late payments and damage to the premises.
The court found that there was a credible argument that the notice was defective and that the re-entry and later events breached the lease cancellation rules in the Property Law Act 2007 (the Act). It noted that the notice cited s. 244 of the Act instead of s. 245 and failed to tell the tenant of its right to ask the court for relief.
The court accepted that re-entry could irremediably damage the business and would likely cost five staff or contractors their positions. It said that damages would not be an adequate remedy if Lalaland later won relief. The court added that the case appeared to fall "squarely within the principles demonstrating a presumptive right to relief," under which courts usually restore a lease once the tenant pays the arrears.
The court left any set-off or arbitration issues for later determination.
The injunction is conditional on Lalaland continuing to pay rent and meeting all lease obligations. The landlord may apply to discharge or vary the order on five working days' notice.
