CAP D'AMARRES RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION & ORS V EDWARDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-006434

CAP D'AMARRES RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION & ORS V EDWARDS & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-006434

The Court declined to recall its earlier judgment because it had considered and determined the issues raised: the berth sublicence agreements were invalid but sublicensees were arguably entitled to vehicular and pedestrian access as invitees of owners, there was no basis to rescind the interim injunction, joinder of the Village Association was unnecessary because access is governed by the Association rules, and the defendants' disqualification application became moot once joinder was declined.

Citation
openlaw-a1f427c0_6297_4d48_8b5d_9e335bd5768b.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Cap d'Amarres Residents' Association Incorporated; Second Plaintiffs: Alan Flitcroft and Chrystine Flitcroft; Third Plaintiffs: Ian Clarence Jones, Shirley Gwendoline Jones and Shale Chambers; First Defendants: Simon Jeremy Rei Edwards, Kitping Tang and CST Trustees Limited; Second Defendants: David Donald Morgan, Glennis Doreen Morgan and Spicers Trustees Company (2005) Limited; Third Defendants: John Winter, Anna Karinelis Elisabeth Winter and Auckland Trustees & Executors Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Recall Application Following Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Both plaintiffs' and defendants' applications for recall dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Recall of Judgment, Joinder, Sublicence, Access Rights, Association Rules
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Contract Law Interim Injunction Recall of Judgment Joinder Sublicence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cap d'Amarres Residents' Association Incorporated

First Plaintiff

Alan Flitcroft and Chrystine Flitcroft

Second Plaintiffs

Ian Clarence Jones, Shirley Gwendoline Jones and Shale Chambers

Third Plaintiffs

Simon Jeremy Rei Edwards, Kitping Tang and CST Trustees Limited

First Defendants

David Donald Morgan, Glennis Doreen Morgan and Spicers Trustees Company (2005) Limited

Second Defendants

John Winter, Anna Karinelis Elisabeth Winter and Auckland Trustees & Executors Limited

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Recall Application Following Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment should be recalled under r 11.9 of the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the interim injunction granted by Peters J should be rescinded
  3. 3 Validity and effect of berth sublicense agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to recall its earlier judgment because it had considered and determined the issues raised: the berth sublicence agreements were invalid but sublicensees were arguably entitled to vehicular and pedestrian access as invitees of owners, there was no basis to rescind the interim injunction, joinder of the Village Association was unnecessary because access is governed by the Association rules, and the defendants' disqualification application became moot once joinder was declined.

Court Disposition

Both plaintiffs' and defendants' applications for recall dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' application for recall dismissed
  • Defendants' application for recall dismissed