BAYLY v HICKS [2015] NZHC 3248

BAYLY v HICKS [2015] NZHC 3248

The Court ordered partition in kind based on the independent experts' five-lot scheme (with a limited pedestrian right of way amendment), allocating lots 1 and 4 to the applicant and lots 2 and 3 to the respondents' family trust, with lot 5 as a common access lot, because that division best achieved a fair and reasonable equal sharing of the property's distinct land types and opportunities; no compensation was ordered.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 3248
Parties
Applicant: J D Bayly; Respondents: M and J A Hicks
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Partition Under Property Law Act 2007 / Final Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Partition ordered in kind into five lots per court-appointed experts' plan (appendix B) with specified amendment; lots 1 and 4 to applicant; lots 2 and 3 to respondents' trustees; lot 5 common access; no compensation ordered; orders subject to required council consents.
Legal Topics
Partition, Subdivision, Valuation, Esplanade Reserve, Access Easements, Costs
Property Law Resource Management Civil Procedure Land Valuation Partition Subdivision Valuation Esplanade Reserve +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J D Bayly

Applicant

M and J A Hicks

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Partition Under Property Law Act 2007 / Final Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether partition should be by equal sharing of land types
  2. 2 Whether to adopt applicant's proposed partition or court-appointed experts' proposal
  3. 3 Whether compensation is payable between parties following partition

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered partition in kind based on the independent experts' five-lot scheme (with a limited pedestrian right of way amendment), allocating lots 1 and 4 to the applicant and lots 2 and 3 to the respondents' family trust, with lot 5 as a common access lot, because that division best achieved a fair and reasonable equal sharing of the property's distinct land types and opportunities; no compensation was ordered.

Court Disposition

Partition ordered in kind into five lots per court-appointed experts' plan (appendix B) with specified amendment; lots 1 and 4 to applicant; lots 2 and 3 to respondents' trustees; lot 5 common access; no compensation ordered; orders subject to required council consents.

Orders

  • Approve five-lot subdivision as per Mr Donaldson's scheme plan (appendix B) subject to pedestrian rights of way between lot 1 and lot 2 in approximate locations shown and three metres wide (or as agreed/required) for beach access only
  • Partition Paihia in accordance with appendix B subject to Far North District Council approving the subdivision and granting any required consents