Blomfield Consulting Limited v Lipsham Investments Limited

[2025] NZHC 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000972

[2025] NZHC 1021

BETWEEN

BLOMFIELD CONSULTING LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

LIPSHAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Defendant

On the papers
Counsel:	N S Tabb for the Plaintiff
Judgment:	30 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[application for injunction orders]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2025 at 4:22 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Solicitors:

Natalie Tabb, Auckland

BLOMFIELD CONSULTING LTD v LIPSHAM INVESTMENTS LTD [2025] NZHC 1021 [30 April 2025]

[1]    At approximately 3 pm today, 30 April 2025, I received the without notice application from Blomfield Consulting Ltd for an interim injunction to restrain Lipsham Investments Ltd from taking steps to remove Blomfield Consulting from the premises it occupies at Building F, Unit 4, 3 Orbit Drive, Rosedale, Auckland (the Premises).

[2]    Because it appears that steps may be taken to remove Blomfield Consulting from the Premises at 5 pm, I have considered the application on the papers.

[3]    Having reviewed the affidavit of Matthew Blomfield, the director of Blomfield Consulting, it is apparent that there is a dispute between Blomfield Consulting and Mark Lipsham, who appears to be the director of Lipsham Investments, over the terms on which Blomfield Consulting occupies the Premises. It also appears that this dispute may relate to a wider dispute between Blomfield Consulting / Lipsham Investments and/or Mr Blomfield and Mr Lipsham.

[4]    Even so, on the basis of the information before me, it appears that Mr Lipsham in his personal capacity, is seeking to require the removal of Blomfield Consulting from premises owned by Lipsham Investments by 5 pm today on the basis that a fixed term lease of the Premises expires today.

[5]    However, on the basis of Mr Blomfield’s affidavit and the exhibits showing invoices and receipts for monthly rental, it appears Blomfield Consulting has a good arguable case that there is no fixed term lease of the Premises and that Blomfield Consulting occupies the Premises under a periodic tenancy which may be terminated only by notice under the Property Law Act 2007. From the correspondence exhibited to Mr Blomfield’s affidavit, it appears that no valid notice has been served.

[6]    Accordingly, I am satisfied that Blomfield Consulting has a good arguable case that neither Mr Lipsham nor Lipsham Investments has a right to remove or require the removal of Blomfield Consulting from the Premises today.

[7]    I am also satisfied that it would cause serious hardship to Blomfield Consulting to be forced to vacate the Premises at short notice and that damages would not be an

adequate remedy. On the evidence before me, I consider it unlikely that Lipsham Investments would suffer significant inconvenience from being restrained from requiring the removal of Blomfield Consulting from the Premises pending a hearing of Blomfield Consulting’s application.

[8]    For these reasons, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favour the making of an order restraining Lipsham Investments from taking steps to remove Blomfield Consulting from the Premises.

Order and directions

[9]    I make an order restraining Lipsham Investments from taking steps to remove Blomfield Consulting Ltd from the premises at Building F, Unit 4, 3 Orbit Drive, Rosedale, Auckland, pending further order of this Court.

[10]I direct Blomfield Consulting to serve its application on Lipsham Investments.

[11]I also direct that this proceeding be called in the Duty List on 7 May 2025.

[12]I reserve costs on the present application.

G J van Bohemen J