Markus Koehnen

The landlord and tenant brought competing applications regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease renewal.

The tenant argued the lease renewed automatically, while the landlord argued a 2012 Renewal Agreement required the tenant to give six months' notice.

The court found that the tenant had established a claim for rectification based on unilateral mistake, as the landlord's agent had inserted the notice requirement without instructions and without drawing it to the tenant's attention, which amounted to unconscionable conduct.

The court ordered the lease rectified to reflect an automatic right of renewal.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against the defendants after alleging misrepresentations in the sale of a business.

The defendants moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to compel further financial disclosure, arguing the defendants had not complied with the initial order.

The court stayed the defendants' motion until they provided full financial disclosure, noting that the failure to disclose material facts on an ex parte motion does not automatically require dissolution of the injunction, and the court must balance the interests of both parties.

The plaintiff's motion for further disclosure was granted.