COVID-19 Commercial Lease Disputes: Free Arbitration and Mediation available now

A modern conference room with a long rectangular table surrounded by swivel chairs, a large screen mounted on one wall, floor-to-ceiling windows providing natural light and views of the outdoors, and a strip of dark seating along the windows.

Update 1 July 2021: Please note that the Government funded scheme has now come to an end but you can still access NZDRC’s low cost fixed fee scheme

Many commercial tenants found their leases were inadequate to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 restrictions.  In a welcome step, the Government has established a scheme allowing parties with a qualifying dispute to access fully subsidised arbitration or mediation services (the Scheme).

Commercial leases without solutions

For those who have commercial leases, there were questions around whether there is a right for tenants to obtain rent relief as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and, if so, what that relief should look like. Some leases contained a clause allowing a fair proportion of rent to be suspended during an emergency situation, but it was not clear what a fair proportion might mean.  Other leases did not expressly provide for any reduction of rent in such circumstances.

When we wrote about this previously, we explained how arbitration or mediation could help parties reach a resolution.  The usefulness of alternative dispute resolution has clearly been recognised by the Government.

Qualifying disputes and eligibility criteria

The Government’s initial proposal announced in June to amend the Property Law Act 2007 to allow for COVID-19 rental disputes to be referred for arbitration or mediation has had an overhaul. The Government has now put in place a fully funded dispute resolution scheme for qualifying disputes where landlords and tenants meet the eligibility criteria.

Qualifying dispute

A dispute will qualify if:

  • the dispute it is about the payment of rent and outgoings, where the tenant has experienced a material loss of revenue during a lockdown period because of Government lockdown restrictions put in place to combat COVID-19; and
  • the payment of rent and outgoings during the relevant lockdown period has not already been the subject of an agreement or arbitral award between the parties to the dispute.

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria are clearly aimed at supporting smaller, New Zealand businesses.  As a result, there are two eligibility criteria that must be met before parties can access the subsidised Scheme:

  • the landlord and tenant must have a New Zealand based business; and
  • the business must have 20 or fewer full-time equivalent staff:
    • in the case of the tenant, per lease site;
    • in the case of the landlord, in total.

Mediation and arbitration by NZDRC

NZDRC is providing fully subsidised arbitration and mediation services as part of the Scheme.  As a result, no fee will be payable by the landlord or tenant.  Those who wish to take advantage of the fully subsidised Scheme will need to apply no later than 31 March 2021.

For lease parties who do not meet the eligibility criteria, NZDRC can still offer you low cost and fixes fee arbitration or mediation services.

To learn more about your options, and the difference between mediation and arbitration download our Introductory Guide.

A judge's gavel rests on a wooden desk in the foreground, symbolizing justice. In the background, slightly out of focus, a person in a judicial robe writes on a piece of paper, possibly signing legal documents or taking notes.

How to access the NZDRC services

Whether parties choose to arbitrate or mediate, they will need to agree to engage in that process. This can be done by completing the special form agreement to arbitrate or special form agreement to mediate, copies of which may be downloaded below:

Download a template Agreement to Mediate

Download a template Agreement to Arbitrate

Once the agreement has been signed, you can apply online or, if you have anyquestions, contact the Registry team who will guide you and your advisers through the process.

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

Court found arbitrator’s jurisdiction could not be resuscitated after delivery of final award even when award was conditional – that parrot is no more!

The Singapore Court of Appeal found an arbitrator’s jurisdiction had come to an end and there was no implied reservation of jurisdiction in the conditional award which he had issued. In its judgment, the Court stepped through the “tells” of a final arbitral award and how an arbitrator may reserve their jurisdiction.
Three people in business attire gathered around a table. Two are shaking hands while standing, and the third person, holding a laptop, stands nearby. A smartphone, coffee cup, and a rectangular planter are visible on the white conference table.

Court orders parties back to arbitration

The recent case of Sesderma, S.L. v Seeky International Limited and Golong Co. Ltd [2023] HKCFI 1619, heard in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, examined the law of issue estoppel and the governing law of arbitration agreements.

An issue estoppel arose as a prior Hong Kong Court ruling held that the contract between the disputing parties which contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause had been superseded by the contract containing a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) arbitration clause.

The Court found that regardless of the issue estoppel the parties were bound by the arbitration clause and the proceedings were stayed.
A large yellow and white front loader with a raised scoop is parked in a sand quarry. Behind the loader are various layers of sand and soil in different shades, and in the distance, there are green trees atop the sandy hills.

Harman obligation released for documents from mining arbitration

The implied undertaking of confidentiality in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 not to use documents discovered in a proceeding for collateral purposes was released in Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 21] [2023] WASC 169, with some conditions.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.