Category: Leasing

  • Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent is the number on the cover sheet. Effective rent is face rent minus the amortised value of every incentive — rent-free months, fit-out contributions, capped opex — spread across the term.

    Year one of a ten-year lease, the two sit close. By year ten, they’ve drifted further apart than most tenants realised they would. Three things drive the divergence.

    Escalations compound face, not effective

    Most Auckland leases run fixed reviews of 2–3% per annum, with market reviews at year four and year seven. Those escalations stack on the face number. Effective rent, calculated against the original incentive package, doesn’t move.

    A face rent of $400/m² with 2.5% annual escalations reaches roughly $510/m² by year ten. The effective rent — calculated against nine months rent-free and a $200/m² fit-out contribution on a ten-year term — sits around $350/m². The gap has widened to $160/m² without anyone touching the lease.

    Market reviews reference face

    The valuer running the year-seven market review pulls comparables. Those comparables are face rents from recent deals. Effective rent doesn’t show up on the comparable schedule. The tenant inherits the market’s face number, not the market’s effective.

    The renewal floor is face

    At expiry, the landlord’s opening position is the current face rent. The tenant who only tracked the headline number through the term is negotiating from a base that’s drifted 25–30% above where the economics actually sit.

    Track effective rent quarterly. The headline number isn’t the one that bites you.

  • Face rent is the wrong number

    Face rent is the wrong number

    Face rent is the wrong number

    Most lease deals get reported on face rent. It’s the number on the cover sheet, the number that shows up in market evidence, the number agents quote when they’re benchmarking. It’s also, in a market with heavy incentives, close to fiction.

    Take a five-year deal at $400/sqm face. Twelve months rent-free. $150/sqm fit-out contribution. On paper, that’s $400. On the lease NPV, it’s closer to $310. Three months later, when someone uses the $400 as evidence on the building next door, the error compounds.

    This matters in three places.

    The first is rent reviews. Market evidence is collected on face. If you’re the tenant in a CPI-or-market clause and your landlord’s valuer is pricing comparables at headline, you’re paying for incentives that other tenants got and you didn’t.

    The second is investment sales. A buyer pricing a cap rate against $400/sqm passing income is paying for income that isn’t really there. The vendor knows. The agent knows. The valuer should know.

    The third is the rent roll itself. Owners who report on face rent across a portfolio are reporting on an income line that doesn’t survive the next renewal.

    Effective rent is harder to calculate. It’s also the only number that means anything. If you’re signing, renewing, valuing, or buying, ask for it. If nobody can produce it, that tells you something too.

  • Lease renewal, lease extension, break clause – three words that aren’t synonyms

    Lease renewal, lease extension, break clause – three words that aren’t synonyms

    If you’ve been told you missed your renewal window, you’re stuck – that’s not the law.

    Three lease mechanisms get used interchangeably by tenants, landlords, agents in a hurry, and the occasional lawyer who should know better. They are not the same thing. The difference between them can be the difference between a routine renegotiation and a six-figure problem you didn’t see coming.

    Here is what each one actually does, why the distinction has commercial consequences, and the statutory relief most tenants don’t know exists.

    Extension vs renewal – the real distinction

    An extension continues the existing lease. Same document, same clauses, same fit-out clock, same make-good obligation. The lease just runs longer. If the extension is built into the original lease as a contractual right, it triggers like any other clause – including any rent review mechanism the extension clause references.

    A renewal renews the lease under the renewal mechanism in the original lease. A new term commences, rent resets per the renewal clause – typically to market subject to whatever ratchet, CPI cap, or arbitration mechanism applies – and the renewal-rights count steps down by one.

    Both can be contractual. Both can be negotiated. The difference is what happens to the terms when the new period begins.

    This sounds academic until you are in the middle of a refinance and the bank wants to know your term certain. A right of renewal that has not been exercised counts for nothing. A signed extension counts in full. Same physical lease, two different bank conversations.

    Why the distinction has commercial consequences

    WALT. Weighted average lease term, the number every commercial valuer and every institutional buyer looks at first, is calculated on signed term. Unexercised renewals do not count. Signed extensions do. A landlord pushing for an extension before going to market is usually making a WALT decision. It can be relational too: the tenant may want the additional tenure. But the timing is often the giveaway.

    Rent review timing. Renewals typically – though not always – carry a market review at the commencement of the new term. That is the ADLS standard, and where the clause specifies a review, it fires on the renewal date whether anyone wants it to or not. Extensions do not have a commencement in the same sense, because they continue the existing lease rather than starting a new term. Whether an extension triggers a review depends on how the extension clause is drafted. Tenants who assume an extension is simply keep going can be caught out if the extension clause was drafted to trigger a review on the extension date.

    Make-good and yielding up. Make-good crystallises against the commencement date of the current term – either the original commencement, or, where a renewal has occurred, the renewal date that started the current term. An extension does not create a new commencement, so it does not shift the make-good reference point. Assuming an extension resets the make-good clock is a common mistake and can lead to a surprise bill at end of term. One exception: if a mid-term refurbishment has been carried out and the lease has been varied at that point to deal with fit-out ownership and make-good obligations, the variation itself can reset or rework the make-good baseline. That is a deal-specific outcome driven by what the parties documented, not the date mechanic.

    Surviving renewal rights. Take a tenant on a six-plus-three-plus-three lease – six-year initial term with two three-year rights of renewal. At year three the tenant wants certainty out to year nine. Renewing early consumes one of the two renewal rights: the lease runs to year nine, but only one renewal right is left, so the total potential occupation is twelve years. A deed of extension to year nine, by contrast, leaves both renewal rights intact, taking total potential occupation to fifteen years. Same nine years of certainty either way – three years of option value either kept or given up, depending on which mechanism is used.

    Break clauses – the easy part to misuse

    A break clause is a contractual right, almost always the tenant’s and occasionally mutual, to terminate the lease early at a specified date.

    The mechanics are simple. The conditions usually are not. A typical break clause requires notice within a fixed window, payment of any break fee, full compliance with covenants, vacant possession, and no arrears. UK case law is full of break notices that failed on technicalities – carpets not replaced, signage not removed, a few hundred pounds of unpaid service charge.

    NZ leases are increasingly importing UK-style break clauses, particularly in larger institutional deals and longer corporate occupier leases. If you have one, treat the conditions like a checklist with a deadline. Most break failures happen because someone assumed substantial compliance was enough. It is not.

    The relief tenants don’t know about

    This is the part most tenants do not get told.

    Under the Property Law Act 2007, sections 261 and 264, a tenant whose landlord refuses to renew can apply to the Court for relief. The Court can order the landlord to enter into the renewal, despite a missed notice date or even a substantive breach.

    The Court has very broad discretion and a strong tendency to grant relief where the breach is not subsisting and substantial and can be quickly remedied. Factors weighed include why the tenant failed to give timely notice, whether landlord conduct contributed to the failure, the tenant’s overall compliance history, prejudice to each side, the landlord’s motivations for refusing, and third-party interests like incoming tenants or purchasers.

    NZ Courts have granted relief even where the tenant deliberately withheld notice trying to negotiate better terms. In Wendco (NZ) Ltd v LJCTB Trustees Ltd [2017] NZHC 2668 – the Wendy’s NZ franchise operator – the High Court ordered a renewal despite the tenant intentionally delaying notice to seek a rent reduction. The Court weighed factors including the potential loss of staff employment and Wendco’s substantial fit-out investment.

    The underlying principle is that landlords should not be able to take commercial advantage of an inadvertent mistake where refusal would be disproportionate. That said, the principle is not a free pass. A subsequent High Court decision signalled that without comparable mitigating factors – employment impact, sunk fit-out cost, disproportionate harm – courts may be less sympathetic where the sole reason for withholding notice was negotiating leverage. The relief is available. The outcome is fact-dependent.

    There is one hard deadline. The tenant must apply to the Court within three months of the landlord’s communication refusing to renew. Miss that and the Court cannot help. Pay close attention to the date on the landlord’s refusal letter.

    This relief is available even when the lease has expired and the tenant is holding over on a month-to-month periodic tenancy. An unexercised renewal right can be revived when the landlord moves to terminate.

    What this means in practice

    If you are a tenant who has missed a renewal notice, you have not necessarily lost the site. Remedy any breach, get advice, and move within the three-month window. Time is the thing that kills these claims, not the underlying breach.

    If you are a landlord and the tenant missed their notice or has been in breach, do not assume you can re-let or sell with vacant possession. The Court can still require you to renew. Get advice before you list, sign a new tenant, or commit to a buyer who expects vacant possession.

    If you are a developer or investor underwriting a deal with leased income, ask whether any of the income depends on unexercised renewal rights and whether those rights have notice deadlines coming up that could be relevant to your hold period. WALT is the easy number. The option mechanics behind it are the real story.

    Honest caveats

    This piece is general guidance, not specific legal advice. The PLA relief framework is broad but discretionary – outcomes turn on the specific facts, the wording of your lease, and the conduct of both sides. ADLS Sixth Edition leases have particular renewal mechanics that are not universal across all NZ commercial leases. Bespoke and older leases vary.

    If you are sitting on a real renewal, extension, or break issue, the framework above is a starting point, not a substitute for advice from someone who has read your lease.

    When to get help

    The fastest way to lose money on a commercial lease is to assume the words mean what they sound like in everyday English. They do not.

    If you are looking at a renewal, extension, break clause, or a refused renewal, you can email me at mike@klug.co.nz.

  • NZ Commercial Leasing Just Changed — Are You Protected?

    NZ Commercial Leasing Just Changed — Are You Protected?

    Recent NZ commercial leasing changes have reshaped how landlords, tenants, and investors approach lease agreements. The ADLS Deed of Lease 7th Edition arrived in late 2024. As a result, it is now essential to understand three critical areas that could affect your commercial property interests.


    Understanding NZ Commercial Leasing Changes

    The Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) Deed of Lease 7th Edition introduces significant updates to commercial leases. For example, it changes how outgoings are managed, how disputes are resolved, and how capital expenditure is treated. Furthermore, these changes affect both existing and new lease negotiations. Consequently, all parties must review their current agreements carefully.

    Minimise Your Risk Under the New Framework

    Protecting your investments under the new framework is more important than ever. Key risk areas include outgoings recovery provisions, make-good obligations, rent reviews, and early termination rights. Each area requires careful structuring to protect your position. In addition, landlords must pay particular attention to how operational expenditure is now classified. However, tenants also need to ensure their lease terms align with the updated Property Law Act 2007 requirements.

    Maximise Property Value and Portfolio Performance

    Smart lease structuring under the updated framework can improve tenant retention and reduce vacancy risk. Furthermore, it can strengthen your negotiating position at renewal. Investors should review how these changes influence property valuations, income calculations, and long-term portfolio strategy. As a result, those who adapt their agreements proactively will maximise returns and strengthen their portfolio performance.


    Klug brings over 20 years of commercial property experience. We guide clients through these NZ commercial leasing changes to protect their interests and maximise returns. Whether you are acquiring, developing, or managing commercial property, these legislative updates may significantly affect your negotiations and portfolio performance. Explore our advisory services or view our case studies to see how we help clients stay ahead of the market.

  • Decoding Your Lease Exit: Tenant’s Guide to Dilapidations in NZ

    Decoding Your Lease Exit: Tenant’s Guide to Dilapidations in NZ

    The End of Lease Challenge: Dilapidations in NZ Commercial Leases

    What Are Heads of Claim in a Dilapidations NZ Commercial Lease?

    Facing a dilapidations NZ commercial lease exit? Learn about heads of claim, the secret defence of supersession, and strategies for a smooth lease exit in NZ.

    A landlord’s Schedule of Dilapidations is a detailed breakdown of alleged breaches of your lease. It’s not just about physical repairs — the claim is itemised into different categories known as heads of claim.

    1. Reinstatement of Alterations — An obligation to remove your specific fit-out (partitions, private kitchens, specialist lighting) and return the space to its original base build condition.

    2. Repairs and Maintenance — The cost of fixing any items that have fallen into disrepair or have been damaged during your tenancy, beyond what is considered fair wear and tear.

    3. Redecoration — A requirement to repaint and re-carpet the premises, often to a specified standard or colour, as outlined in your lease agreement.

    4. Loss of Rent — A claim for rent for the period the landlord is unable to lease the property because they are undertaking the repair works that were your responsibility.

    5. Professional Fees — The landlord can claim the costs of their consultants, including the building surveyor who prepared the dilapidations schedule and the lawyer who reviewed the claim.

    The Secret Defence: Supersession

    One of the most powerful arguments a tenant can make is supersession. This legal concept applies when a landlord’s own plans for the property render the tenant’s repair obligations pointless. For instance, if the landlord intends to gut the premises for a full refurbishment, they cannot logically claim for you to repair walls they are about to demolish.

    In New Zealand, the burden of proof falls on the tenant to provide clear evidence of the landlord’s intentions, such as lodged building consents, architectural plans, or board minutes approving a redevelopment — all dated at or before the lease expiry.

    Key Strategies for a Smooth Exit

    Pre-Lease Diligence: Before signing, insist on a detailed Schedule of Condition to document the property’s state. This is your baseline and best defence against liability for pre-existing issues.

    Early Engagement: Open a dialogue with your landlord well before your lease ends. Understanding their future plans is invaluable.

    Scrutinise Every Item: Do not accept a dilapidations claim at face value. Assess each head of claim for validity, cost, and whether supersession applies.

    Are you facing a lease exit and unsure how to navigate the complexities of your make-good obligations? Contact Klug for expert guidance.

  • RICS Service Charge Standard 2025: What It Means for NZ

    RICS Service Charge Standard 2025: What It Means for NZ

    The RICS Service Charge Standard 2025 has just raised the bar on OPEX transparency. Here’s what NZ landlords, tenants and investors should take from it.

    RICS released the second edition of its Service Charges in Commercial Property standard in June 2025, with full compliance required by 31 December 2025. It is the biggest overhaul of service charge governance in nearly a decade. It is a UK mandatory standard — but the principles apply directly to how we manage OPEX in New Zealand.

    At Klug, we believe the best commercial property decisions are shaped by international best practice, not just local convention. We have mapped the key RICS principles against the NZ framework to show where we align, where the gaps are, and what smart operators should be doing now.

    Why OPEX Costs Matter for NZ Commercial Property Under the RICS Service Charge Standard 2025

    OPEX is one of the most underestimated costs in commercial property. Based on industry benchmarking data, it adds between 8% and over 50% on top of net rent — depending on asset class, building grade and location.

    Office: 14–19% for premium CBD through to 40–56% for C-grade. Fringe offices sit at 28–40%.

    Retail: 15–25% for large format up to 35–50% for secondary suburban. Shopping centres run higher due to shared services, marketing levies and centre management.

    Industrial: The leanest sector. Prime logistics at 8–14%. Standard warehouse at 12–20%. Older or multi-tenanted stock can hit 20–30%.

    The cost drivers — rates, insurance, body corporate, management fees and retail marketing levies — are all climbing. Auckland Council commercial rates have risen 5–8% per annum. Insurance costs are up sharply, especially for older buildings and flood-prone areas.

    OPEX governance is not an afterthought. It is one of the most important issues in commercial leasing today.

    Key Changes in the 2025 RICS Standard

    The second edition tightens five critical areas:

    1. Budgets and timelines — Budgets issued at least one month before the service charge year. Year-end accounts within four months.

    2. Transparency — All commissions, rebates and procurement discounts disclosed and passed through. Apportionment matrix provided. Digital access expected.

    3. Financial controls — No more than 100% cost recovery. Discrete bank accounts. Interest credited to tenants. Independent certification of year-end accounts.

    4. Management fees — Percentage-based fees prohibited. Fixed fees only. Tied to service charge management, not rent collection or asset management.

    5. Non-recoverable costs — Void costs, capital works, vacancy marketing and landlord investment costs cannot be recovered from tenants.

    NZ vs RICS: How Does New Zealand Compare?

    NZ commercial leasing is governed by the ADLS Deed of Lease, now in its 7th Edition (late 2024). There is no NZ equivalent of the RICS mandatory standard. The 7th Edition has closed some gaps. Significant differences remain.

    Where NZ aligns: Annual outgoings budgets required. Tenants can request supporting evidence. 24-month recovery deadline on uncharged outgoings. Capital charges excluded from utility recovery. Arbitration and mediation standard.

    Where NZ falls short:

    Insurance commissions: Landlords and managers commonly retain commissions and rebates without disclosure. RICS requires full transparency and pass-through. This is the biggest gap.

    Management fees: NZ uses percentage-based fees (typically 3–5% of gross income). RICS prohibits this — it creates a perverse incentive to increase costs.

    Reconciliation deadlines: No mandated timeframe for year-end OPEX accounts. RICS requires four months.

    Independent certification: No requirement for independent verification. Tenants rely on the landlord’s word.

    Fund segregation: OPEX funds typically commingled in trust accounts. RICS requires discrete accounts with interest.

    What To Do Now

    Landlords and Property Managers: Issue OPEX budgets at least one month early with commentary on cost drivers. Set a 4-month deadline for year-end reconciliations. Move to fixed management fees. Disclose all commissions and rebates. Publish your apportionment matrix.

    Tenants and Advisors: Use the RICS Standard as a negotiating benchmark. Request RICS-aligned OPEX provisions even on ADLS deeds. Push for independent certification on major tenancies. Negotiate OPEX caps. Insist on audit rights.

    Developers and Project Sales: Structure OPEX with RICS-aligned transparency from day one. It makes assets more attractive to institutional buyers and tenants. For mixed-use, the apportionment matrix is critical.

    OPEX Governance: A Competitive Advantage

    Well-managed OPEX builds trust. Tenants stay longer. Vacancy drops. NOI stabilises. Asset values hold. Poorly managed OPEX does the opposite — unexplained cost increases, opaque reconciliations and percentage-based fees that climb with costs erode the tenant relationship.

    OPEX governance is not a compliance exercise. It is a competitive advantage. With OPEX adding 8% to over 56% on top of net rent, the stakes are too high to ignore.

    To discuss how OPEX governance applies to your portfolio or project, contact the Klug team.

  • Beyond the Rent: A Key to Smarter Lease Negotiations

    Beyond the Rent: A Key to Smarter Lease Negotiations

    Successful commercial lease negotiation in NZ requires looking well beyond the headline rental figure. Smart negotiators understand that the terms surrounding the rent often have a greater impact on total occupancy cost and long-term flexibility than the rate itself.

    At Klug, we help institutional clients and occupiers with commercial lease negotiation in NZ by optimising their lease agreements and considering the full picture — not just what the rent looks like on day one, but how the lease performs over its full term.

    Key Areas in Commercial Lease Negotiation

    Exit strategies — Early termination rights, subletting provisions, and assignment flexibility give tenants options if circumstances change. Without these, you can be locked into space that no longer fits your business.

    Fitout contributions and rent-free periods — These reduce your effective occupancy cost in the early years and can significantly shift the economics of a deal. A slightly higher face rent with a generous incentive package can be better value than a lower headline rent with nothing attached.

    Rent review mechanisms — How and when the rent is reviewed matters as much as the starting figure. Fixed increases, CPI-linked reviews, and market reviews each carry different risk profiles for landlord and tenant. Understanding how the Property Law Act 2007 applies to rent review disputes is essential.

    Outgoings and operational costs — Understanding what you are liable for beyond the base rent — building insurance, rates, body corporate levies, management fees — is critical. These can represent 30 to 50 percent of your total occupancy cost.

    Make-good obligations — What condition do you need to return the premises in at the end of the lease? Poorly drafted make-good clauses can result in significant unexpected costs at expiry.

    Why This Matters

    A lease that looks good on the rent line can become problematic when other terms create hidden costs or operational constraints. With over 20 years of commercial property experience, Klug negotiates comprehensive agreements that protect your interests and provide long-term flexibility.

    Whether you are acquiring space, renewing an existing lease, or restructuring your portfolio, our expertise in commercial lease negotiation ensures you get more than just a good rent rate — you get a strategic asset. Explore our advisory services or contact us to discuss your next lease.