NIRVANA FARM LIMITED & ORS v MAKAKAHO LAND COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR [2020] NZHC 3536

NIRVANA FARM LIMITED & ORS v MAKAKAHO LAND COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR [2020] NZHC 3536

Given the urgency of the manuka flowering season and the risk that the injunction would be frustrated if Forrest 360 refused to act without a joint instruction from the defendants' solicitors, the Court exercised its power to vary the interim injunction on a without notice basis because the nomination of Forrest 360...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 3536
Parties
First Plaintiff: Nirvana Farm Limited; Second Plaintiff: Gerald Pearce and Philipppa Williams as Trustees of the Totaranui Trust; Third Plaintiff: Settlers Honey Limited; Fourth Plaintiff: Frewin & Son Limited; Fifth Plaintiff: Kaimānuka Honey Limited; First Defendant: Makakaho Land Company Limited; Second Defendant: Roger Kenneth Roderick Pearce
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Interim Injunction Variation (without Notice)
Outcome
Variation of interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Variation of Injunction, Drone Surveillance, Access to Land, Urgency
Civil Equity Property Aviation (drones) Interim Injunction Variation of Injunction Drone Surveillance Access to Land +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nirvana Farm Limited

First Plaintiff

Gerald Pearce and Philipppa Williams as Trustees of the Totaranui Trust

Second Plaintiff

Settlers Honey Limited

Third Plaintiff

Frewin & Son Limited

Fourth Plaintiff

Kaimānuka Honey Limited

Fifth Plaintiff

Makakaho Land Company Limited

First Defendant

Roger Kenneth Roderick Pearce

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction / Interim Injunction Variation (without Notice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 3(c) of the interim injunction should be varied to allow a suitably experienced drone operator in place of a named agent
  2. 2 Whether the Court may vary the injunction on a without notice basis due to urgency
  3. 3 Whether the specific nomination of Forrest 360 was essential to the injunction or replaceable without prejudice to defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Given the urgency of the manuka flowering season and the risk that the injunction would be frustrated if Forrest 360 refused to act without a joint instruction from the defendants' solicitors, the Court exercised its power to vary the interim injunction on a without notice basis because the nomination of Forrest 360 was not essential and allowing 'a suitably experienced drone operator' would not prejudice the defendants; accordingly clause 3(c) was amended as sought.

Court Disposition

Variation of interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Clause 3(c) of the interim injunction dated 10 December 2020 is amended to read: For the purposes of identifying manuka when in flower and checking compliance with the terms of this injunction, the plaintiffs duly appointed employee of their agent, Forrest 360 or a suitably experienced drone operator, is permitted...
  • Application to vary injunction was dealt with on a without notice basis