MENZIES v GOODLEY [2015] NZHC 1481

MENZIES v GOODLEY [2015] NZHC 1481

The Memorandum of Transfer is clear and unambiguous and governs the restrictive covenant; the Deposited Plan is not incorporated into the covenant; plaintiffs failed to prove a common intention or documentary mistake warranting rectification; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim for injunction and rectification fails...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 1481
Parties
Plaintiffs: Graeme Ross Menzies; Julieanne Menzies; Donald Wilfred Menzies (as trustees of the Graeme Menzies Family Trust) and Graeme Ross Menzies; Julie Anne Menzies; Donald Wilfred Menzies (as trustees of the Julie Menzies Family Trust); Defendants: Wayne Michael Goodley and Pamela Dianne Goodley (as trustees of the PAW Family Trust)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute (restrictive Covenant; Injunction; Rectification) / Final Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; plaintiffs' claims dismissed; interim injunction discharged.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Deeds, Rectification, Injunctive Relief, Easements
Property Law Equity Contract Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Interpretation of Deeds Rectification Injunctive Relief +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graeme Ross Menzies; Julieanne Menzies; Donald Wilfred Menzies (as trustees of the Graeme Menzies Family Trust) and Graeme Ross Menzies; Julie Anne Menzies; Donald Wilfred Menzies (as trustees of the Julie Menzies Family Trust)

Plaintiffs

Wayne Michael Goodley and Pamela Dianne Goodley (as trustees of the PAW Family Trust)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute (restrictive Covenant; Injunction; Rectification) / Final Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of a height restriction covenant
  2. 2 Whether the Deposited Plan can be read into the covenant
  3. 3 Whether rectification of the covenant is available

Ratio Decidendi

The Memorandum of Transfer is clear and unambiguous and governs the restrictive covenant; the Deposited Plan is not incorporated into the covenant; plaintiffs failed to prove a common intention or documentary mistake warranting rectification; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim for injunction and rectification fails and judgment is entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; plaintiffs' claims dismissed; interim injunction discharged.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendants on the plaintiffs' claims.
  • The interim injunction made by Keane J on 11 March 2015 is discharged.