Resolve your commercial lease rent review dispute quickly and cost-effectively 

Unfortunately, rent review disputes are common, especially in the current economic climate. They are often stressful, time-consuming and expensive and may damage the ongoing relationship between the landlord and the tenant.  

What are your options if you are involved in a rent review dispute? 
Author(s): Favour Lawry

We now offer fixed-fee rent review arbitration to help you resolve your dispute quickly and cost-effectively, with no cost surprises. There is no hearing: the decision is made “on the documents”, and an award is made within 25 to 35 working days after the claim is filed.  

This means that the landlord and tenant receive an answer much faster than in a court setting or a typical arbitration with a hearing. They deal swiftly with the dispute and move on.  

This service costs $5,000 plus GST, payable in advance. The landlord and tenant pay this in equal shares unless they agree otherwise. There is no cost award: costs lie where they fall, giving cost certainty. 

Other key features of our fixed-fee rent review arbitration are: 

  • It can be used for market reviews, PPI reviews, or fixed percentage or fixed dollar reviews. It can also address disputes over “caps” and “collars” and how they apply. 
  • Permitted documents for filing: 
    • The deed of lease or agreement to lease; 
    • Any relevant variations; 
    • Any documents recording any relevant prior rent reviews; and  
    • Valuation reports and any other relevant expert reports or evidence.
  • The parties get a full opportunity to submit their case and to see and comment on each other’s case. However, to save costs and have an efficient process, there are limits on the submissions:  
    • Claim and response submissions up to 10 pages each; and  
    • Reply and rejoinder submissions up to five pages each.  
  • The service is private and confidential, unlike court proceedings.  

Another option is mediation. Mediation allows the landlord and tenant to agree on a mutually beneficial outcome. This process is private and confidential. It can save dispute costs and help preserve the ongoing landlord and tenant relationship. For these reasons, it is a good alternative option to consider. 

We also offer expert determination. This is especially useful for market reviews where the landlord and tenant have registered valuers’ reports, and a significant gap exists between them. We can appoint an independent expert to determine the outcome in a private and confidential process. Again, this is a quick, cost-effective way to resolve the commercial rent review dispute, compared to court or an arbitration with a hearing. 

If you wish to discuss these options further or have any questions, please contact us at registrar@nzdrc.co.nz  or freephone at +64 9 486 7153. We are happy to help.  

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.

A grand building with intricate architecture and multiple spires, set against a blue sky with scattered clouds. Several flags, including red and yellow ones, can be seen in front of the building. The structure appears historic and majestic.
Arbitration

The State immunity siesta: Australia’s top court renews Spain’s understanding of ICSID

In a recent decision, the High Court of Australia has ruled that an ICSID arbitration award between the Kingdom of Spain and a company from Luxembourg, Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l, can be recognised and enforced, but not the subject of execution. Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. & Anor provides clarity around the application of State immunity and develops an understanding on how the ICSID Convention can be interpreted. [1]
Learn more
Adjudication, Arbitration, Mediation

Sense and violence: English courts reject offshore construction contractor’s $25 million indemnity insurance claim because its interpretation of the policy made no commercial sense and did violence to the language

In Technip v MedGulf, the English High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed a construction contractor’s $25 million (USD) indemnity insurance claim for damage it caused when it crashed into the project developer’s property during construction works in an offshore oil field. Both courts preferred the insurer’s interpretation of the policy’s ambiguously worded exclusion clause, finding the policyholder’s interpretation made no commercial sense and did far more violence to the natural meaning of the words.
Learn more
A person in a blue lab coat and blue gloves uses tweezers to pick up a pill from a petri dish filled with various colorful pills. The background is a laboratory setting with scientific equipment.
Arbitration

Serious irregularity standard in arbitration

In Cipla Limited v Salix Pharmaceuticals Inc [2023] EWHC 910, the English High Court has confirmed a high threshold exists for successful challenges to awards on the basis that the arbitral tribunal committed serious irregularity because it failed to act fairly.
Learn more

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.