MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and formulated three appellate questions: interpretation of the 'clean and tidy' lease clauses with respect to remediation, liability under an implied term against waste, and the temporal scope of any remediation obligation; the Court did not decide the substantive merits...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZSC 177
- Parties
- Applicant: Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited; Respondent: Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Limited)
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 November 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted by Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; questions for appeal approved
- Legal Topics
- Lease Covenants, Remediation, Contamination Liability, Implied Terms, Waste
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited
Applicant
Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Limited)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted by Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 'clean and tidy' clauses in the 1985 leases required Mobil to remediate hydrocarbon contamination on termination of the leases
- 2 Whether Mobil is liable for remediation costs on the basis it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste
- 3 Whether any remediation obligation, if established, extends only to contamination caused since 1985 or to contamination since 1925
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and formulated three appellate questions: interpretation of the 'clean and tidy' lease clauses with respect to remediation, liability under an implied term against waste, and the temporal scope of any remediation obligation; the Court did not decide the substantive merits but allowed these issues to proceed to appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; questions for appeal approved
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal granted
- Questions for appeal approved as set out in the judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177 [20 November 2015]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 107/2015[2015] NZSC 177BETWEEN MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDApplicantAND DEVELOPMENT AUCKLANDLIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLANDWATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTAGENCY LIMITED)RespondentCourt: Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJCounsel: M G Ring QC and P R Rzepecky for ApplicantA R Galbraith QC and M C Smith for RespondentJudgment: 20 November 2015JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).B The approved questions are:(a) Did the "clean and tidy" clauses in the 1985 leasesbetween Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?(b) If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?(c) If the answer to either (a) or (b) is "yes", does theremediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Greenwood Roche, Wellington for ApplicantGilbert/Walker, Auckland for Respondent