New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Change of circumstances

Legal area

Court

16 Nov 2023

BEECHNEST (2014) LIMITED v MARSHALL & ORS [2023] NZHC 3226

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3226
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed grounds primarily challenged the District Court's factual findings (upheld on appeal), did not raise questions of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient importance to justify a second appeal, and the High Court correctly applied s 317 including assessment of substantial injury, finding the respondents would likely be substantially injured and that the exercise of discretion to dismiss was justified.
15 Mar 2023

BEECHNEST (2014) LIMITED v MARSHALL [2023] NZHC 519

Citation

[2023] NZHC 519
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that extinguishing the restrictive covenants would not substantially injure persons entitled (notably the neighbours most affected), the mistake in imposing the covenants did not constitute a statutory change of circumstances or otherwise make it just and equitable to modify, s317(1)(b) did not apply, and the trial judge properly exercised his discretion (justice favoured respondents); District Court judgment affirmed.
14 Jan 2022

LATTER v BONG [2022] NZHC 20

Citation

[2022] NZHC 20
Court

High Court

The court had jurisdiction under s 317 to extinguish all three covenants: the first two were extinguished because the vendor beneficiary (Land Projects Ltd) no longer exists and a dwelling exists on the land making the covenants purposeless, satisfying change of circumstances and just and equitable grounds; the third covenant was extinguished because several beneficiaries consented, other beneficiaries, having been properly served and informed, did not oppose and thereby abandoned or waived their rights, and development since 1985 has changed the neighbourhood so the covenant no longer has ut…
14 Dec 2020

JACANNA HOLDINGS LTD v PACIFIC AUTO CARRIER (NZ) LTD & ORS [2020] NZHC 3308

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3308
Court

High Court

Because IBC Japan, PAC and ATI executed a deed settling ownership in ATI's favour and the interested parties formally withdrew opposition, there was no longer a serious question to be tried as to ownership and the balance of convenience had materially changed; accordingly the interim injunction was properly discharged and the funds ordered paid to ATI with ATI to be joined as defendant.
6 Nov 2020

OCEANIA FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION INCOR v NICHOLAS [2020] NZHC 2937

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2937
Court

High Court

The applicant withdrew his interlocutory application without justification arising from OFC's conduct, failed to show the required clear and significant change in circumstances to be relieved from his undertaking (COVID impact was foreseeable), and therefore costs were awarded to OFC ($7,519) and the $100,000 held on trust must be applied to reduce the Basecorp loan secured over the Te Atatu property in accordance with the undertaking.
29 Apr 2019

LIN & ORS v MAYALL PROPERTY GROUP LTD & ORS [2019] NZHC 912

Citation

[2019] NZHC 912
Court

High Court

The covenants were extinguished because material changes—primarily the change from rural to residential zoning and transformation of neighbourhood character—have rendered the covenants obsolete and unduly burdensome, extinguishment will not substantially injure beneficiaries, and RMA vesting requirements and prior authorities support removing the encumbrances.
23 Feb 2018

ER XIA CAO, ER SHENG CAO and JUN WU v MAYALL PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED [2018] NZHC 225

Citation

[2018] NZHC 225
Court

High Court

The covenant was extinguished because rezoning and the residential redevelopment of the area rendered the covenant obsolete; the covenant itself contemplated termination on rezoning; vesting requirements under the RMA necessitate free titles; and extinguishment would not substantially injure any beneficiary, so s 317 PLA relief was appropriate.
20 Dec 2017

Lawrence v Lawrence [2017] NZHC 3261

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3261
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed in part because the High Court concluded the Family Court erred in overestimating the applicant's income and earning capacity and in failing to account adequately for her reasonable needs; applying a household cost approach and assessing the applicant's realistic capacity to work, the Court increased future spousal maintenance from $2,500 to $3,000 per week from 1 February 2018 until 21 April 2019 but declined to order backdated arrears.
5 Sept 2014

SINGH v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL CA270/2014 [2014] NZCA 434 [4 September 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZCA 434
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law of sufficient general or public importance was identified; the High Court adequately considered the child's welfare and did not err as a matter of law; post-decision family court changes are not grounds of appeal and must be pursued through appropriate statutory channels; extension of time was refused because the delay was unexplained and proposed grounds lacked merit.
25 Jan 2008

MAYORAL DRIVE TRUSTEE COMPANY V A KHOWLEY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-003209

Citation

openlaw-2d394c5e_ba8f_4078_b9dc_8c5783a7c146.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants' solicitor's communication constituted a new repudiation and, coupled with a new New Zealand offer to purchase the property, constituted a material change of circumstances making enforcement of specific performance inequitable; accordingly the prior order for specific performance should be discharged.