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.

The treasure of the San José

An investor-State arbitration is currently underway between the Republic of Colombia and a US company over a 300-year-old shipwreck containing treasure estimated at $20 billion – the most valuable sunken treasure in history. The company claims Colombia has unlawfully expropriated its rights to the treasure, in breach of a US-Colombia investment treaty, and seeks nearly $10 billion in damages.
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.
Hamilton Bridge

HAL in hot water: Tetchy comments and refusal to attend arbitration boils over in lease dispute

Yi Ming Investment Ltd (YMIL) terminated the lease of Hamilton Accommodation Ltd (HAL) due to alleged contractual breaches at the Ascot Motor Lodge in Hamilton, in the High Court case of Hamilton Accommodation Limited v Yi Ming Investment Limited [2024] NZHC 1619. These breaches included unauthorised alterations to the manager’s unit and using the premises for emergency housing without permission. Once the dispute arose HAL refused to engage in arbitration and the matter ended up in the High Court, with the Court handing down a scathing verdict on HAL’s conduct.

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.