New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Boundary dispute

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2019

HOJSGAARD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZCA 84

Citation

[2019] 2NZLR 864
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court erred in declining to quash the Chief Executive's approval of the Brill cadastral survey because the Chief Executive failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration (whether the Wright survey's western boundary was a right‑lined former water boundary); quashing is required because leaving the impugned approval in the cadastre would preserve the presumption of correctness and prejudice correction under s52; the Court will not itself determine the substantive contested survey facts where evidence is heavily contested and not fit for dispositive factual findings; remit for r…
27 Jun 2018

HOJSGAARD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LINZ [2018] NZHC 1563

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1563
Court

High Court

The Court stayed execution of its direction to the Chief Executive to reconsider the survey because the Chief Executive's statutory role and the novelty of the legal question risked rendering the appeal moot if the direction were executed; however the Court refused to stay the proceeding as to costs, reserving costs and directing filing of costs memoranda, because there was no basis to delay costs pending appeal and the successful party should not be prejudiced.
20 Apr 2018

HOJSGAARD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 750

Citation

[2018] 3NZLR 99
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive, in approving the Brill survey for integration, failed to have regard to a mandatory relevant consideration—namely whether the western boundary of the Wright survey is depicted as a right-lined former water boundary—and therefore the decision-making process was deficient; the Court will not substitute its own factual determination on the competing surveys but will remit the matter for limited reconsideration by the Chief Executive to determine compliance with the Rules by reference to that consideration.
21 Jul 2017

HOJSGAARD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZHC 1695

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1695
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its r 9.44 powers within consent limits: it ordered two expert conferences (surveyors; geological/scientific) convened and chaired by the appointed amicus, permitted one legal adviser per party to attend to assist preparation of the joint witness statements, required signed joint statements by set dates, and directed that counsel may cross-examine on all disputed issues with parties to file a joint memorandum defining scope of cross-examination; additional procedural directions were given to manage the trial timetable and evidence.
13 Mar 2017

STAITE v KUSABS [2017] NZHC 416

Citation

[2017] NZHC 416
Court

High Court

Court found trustee E Moke breached fiduciary duty of loyalty by acting on both sides of the Tumunui lease negotiations; Tumunui Trust had knowledge of his dual role; statutory limitation did not bar relief because breach amounted to equitable fraud under Limitation Act s21(1); automatic rescission inappropriate but equitable rectification was ordered to remove the clause allowing deduction of improvements by predecessors (since 1961) so rent reviews exclude predecessors' improvements; boundary and easement relief reserved for Māori Land Court and Registrar processes; easement repair/maintena…
17 Jun 2015

BETHELL v BETHELL [2015] NZHC 1375

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1375
Court

High Court

The Court held the specific performance order required conveyance of 4.047 hectares (10 acres) to the plaintiff and the lodging of a survey plan conforming to that entitlement; the High Court has jurisdiction to make supplemental directions grounded on the post-order discovery of an error in the scheme plan, and accordingly ordered the defendant to take and pay for all steps necessary (including signing a revised s 223 survey plan and obtaining any required fresh resource consent) to effect transfer of Lot 1 as 10 acres; the five gates, the water tank and the wood-burner were fixtures and mus…
22 Oct 2013

EDMUNDS v LAUDER [2013] NZHC 2770

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2770
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that occupiers of section 120 were in adverse possession of the disputed wedge as at 1932 with the necessary intention to possess; familial/common ownership and available evidence supported an inference of accommodation rather than adversity, therefore adverse possession did not mature and the claim must be dismissed.
28 Feb 2013

CHIEF EXECUTIVE LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND V TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND FRIENDS OF MATAPOURI INCORPORATED COA CA67/2011

Citation

openlaw-a1aca5ec_1f70_47e6_b84f_8452f1944837.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Chief Surveyor's approval of DP 199214 in 1999 was made applying an insufficiently rigorous standard and therefore was legally reviewable and erroneous; the Surveyor-General was correct to refuse correction under s 52 in 2008 because the material did not meet the very high threshold required to overturn prior cadastral definitions; the Trust's private law claims in contract and trust were time-barred or lacked essential elements and therefore failed; costs in the High Court should lie where they fall except for specific Maori Land Court attendance costs, and no costs are ordered in this C…
22 Dec 2010

TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU TRUST AND ANOR V DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2008-488-548

Citation

openlaw-94361c63_f3f6_4bdb_8aff_aa17df839507.pdf
Court

High Court

The Chief Surveyor applied an insufficiently rigorous standard in 1999 when approving DP 199214 and thereby erred in law; that decision is set aside by declaration. Claims for breach of contract, breach of trust and breaches of Treaty principles are dismissed: the Treaty does not create private law remedies, and the contractual/trust claims are barred by limitation/laches. The Surveyor‑General's refusal under s52 and the District Land Registrar's titling decision are not set aside given indefeasibility and the Surveyor‑General's application of the correct high standard.
22 Dec 2009

OUTTRIM V LI AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-2768

Citation

openlaw-e3518289_3322_4dac_8bd7_d9f355fd09d9.pdf
Court

High Court

On an objective assessment the plaintiffs' erection of accurate warning signs and a single heated exchange were not unreasonable or unlawful means causing loss; there was no assault or intention to cause economic loss and causation of the alleged market decline was not established, therefore the counterclaim fails.