MURRAY AND ANOR V BC GROUP (2003) LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-198

MURRAY AND ANOR V BC GROUP (2003) LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-198

Given the local topography and contemporary standards, the sealed council footpath of about 70 metres with a 15 metre elevation change (a 1–3 minute walk) provides reasonable physical access for residential use of No.3, so the land is not landlocked within s129B and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant vehicular...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-7ad10aea_6088_48e9_983e_ecfb3c77b836.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Sam Murray; Plaintiff: Brendan Tuohy; First Defendant: BC Group (2003) Limited; First Defendant: John Molyneux; First Defendant: Judith Shirley Molyneux; Second Defendant: Elizabeth Rutherford; Third Defendant: Sarah June Stuart; Fourth Defendant: Susan Margaret Stokes; Fifth Defendant: Hilary Catherine Low; Sixth Defendant: Thomas Peter Gott; Sixth Defendant: Jocelyn Ann Cranefield
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under S129 B Property Law Act 1952 for Access to Landlocked Land / Final Judgment (high Court, Wellington) 12 February 2009
Outcome
Application dismissed. Property not landlocked; court declines to order access.
Legal Topics
Landlocked Access, Reasonable Access, S129 B Property Law Act 1952, Easements, Neighbour Disputes
Property Law Civil Procedure Landlocked Access Reasonable Access S129 B Property Law Act 1952 Easements Neighbour Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Murray

Plaintiff

Brendan Tuohy

Plaintiff

BC Group (2003) Limited

First Defendant

John Molyneux

First Defendant

Judith Shirley Molyneux

First Defendant

Elizabeth Rutherford

Second Defendant

Sarah June Stuart

Third Defendant

Susan Margaret Stokes

Fourth Defendant

Hilary Catherine Low

Fifth Defendant

Thomas Peter Gott

Sixth Defendant

Jocelyn Ann Cranefield

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under S129 B Property Law Act 1952 for Access to Landlocked Land / Final Judgment (high Court, Wellington) 12 February 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether No. 3 Iwi Street is landlocked within the meaning of s129B
  2. 2 Whether foot access via the council footpath constitutes reasonable access for residential use
  3. 3 Whether court should order vehicular access over neighbouring formed driveway and manoeuvring area

Ratio Decidendi

Given the local topography and contemporary standards, the sealed council footpath of about 70 metres with a 15 metre elevation change (a 1–3 minute walk) provides reasonable physical access for residential use of No.3, so the land is not landlocked within s129B and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant vehicular access over neighbouring land.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Property not landlocked; court declines to order access.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Active respondents entitled to costs