Court date looms for lease battle

A High Court date has been set in a bid to end a bitter Picton property dispute.

EcoWorld Aquarium and Wildlife Rehabilitation centre is battling Port Marlborough bosses over a decision to not renew their lease.

Aquarium owner John Reuhman is accusing the Marlborough District Council owned company of ongoing bullying tactics.

And he is alleging the court case has already cost Marlborough ratepayers about half a million dollars in lawyer fees.

“All of this comes at a huge cost, to Marlborough’s ratepayers.

“I understand from a friend who worked at Bell Gully that Port Marlborough’s legal costs are estimated to be more than half a million dollars and rising.

“This is a staggering amount of ratepayers money and ridiculous, irresponsible bullying behaviour.”

EcoWorld’s lease with Port Marlborough ended on July 22 last year.

The main 5-day hearing in the High Court in Blenheim has been confirmed for 19 September 2022.

John, who says he has a legal right to renew the lease, has refused to leave the premises and has been operating as usual.

He has continually turned down offers from Port Marlborough to buy the building for $750,000, claiming the proposal is “insanity.”

“Port Marlborough has made the same offer nine times to steal my building, offering $75,000 for EcoWorld’s building which has been recently valued at $2.495 million.

“This is called unjust enrichment … and to make the same offer nine times - some might call it insanity, John says.

Port Marlborough has engaged legal firm Bell Gully in Wellington to handle the case.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for 22 February in Blenheim.

John says bullying tactics include allegations over unpaid invoices, expired resource consents and failure to inform Port Marlborough over the cinema build.

“Port Marlborough continues to try to wear us down, using their lawyers to bully us with legal tactics, denying access to evidence and alleging unfounded legal breaches etc.

“EcoWorld has extensive records whereas Port Marlborough’s records seem to be missing. Who would spend $600,000 without the landowner’s approval?”

A spokeswoman for Port Marlborough says as the matter is before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment at this point.