21 Sept 2021
The application for without‑notice extinguishment was refused because applicants did not demonstrate a sound reason to dispense with statutory service requirements under s316; inconvenience and commercial timing were insufficient, and the relied‑upon authorities were distinguishable.
15 Sept 2021
Because the stormwater drain on the burdened land is abandoned and the benefited land has been redeveloped with a new public stormwater system, the easement is redundant; extinguishment will not substantially injure any person entitled to enforce it, and the court therefore exercised its discretion to extinguish the easement and declined to order compensation.
17 Jul 2020
The easement had not been used for decades, was subsumed and built over by later development, beneficiaries are deceased or companies deregistered, and the continuation of the easement would impede reasonable use of the land; these facts satisfied s317 criteria so the Court extinguished the right of way and granted leave to commence by originating application in the High Court.
6 Mar 2020
The Court granted extinguishment under s317 Property Law Act 2007 because the easements were now redundant, infrastructural alternatives were in place, no party would be detrimentally affected (Council consented and beneficiaries could not practically be assembled), and extinguishment was necessary to allow subdivision and issue of new titles.
23 Mar 2018
The easement was extinguished because the restrictive covenant was inconsistent with the property's long-standing commercial zoning, the land had been used commercially with council consent and without enforcement or objection, the Council did not oppose removal, and no person entitled would be substantially injured by extinguishment under s317 PLA 2007.
17 Aug 2017
Extinguishment itself did not, on its own, amount to substantial injury but the constructed retaining wall caused material harm to access and amenity; overall justice required extinguishment to proceed only if reasonable compensation was paid therefore the court granted extinguishment subject to vesting conditions and ordered $80,000 compensation.
16 Feb 2016
The easement was extinguished because the resource consent authorising the dam expired on 31 May 2012 making operation and supply unlawful, the dam was lawfully removed so the easement cannot be exercised without new consents, there would be no substantial detriment from extinguishment and the statutory criteria in s317 were satisfied.
18 Dec 2015
The Court held that s123(2) LTA meant any transmission to the Public Trustee did not defeat the Okey parties' existing equitable easement; the beneficiaries and the Trust acknowledged the equitable interest so no loss resulted from the executor's acts or omissions; accordingly there was no utility in the declaratory relief and no viable cause of action against the Public Trustee, and the claims against the Kingsbeer parties were frivolous or without merit and were struck out; summary judgment for the Public Trustee and strike-out of the Kingsbeer defendants were ordered.
11 Jul 2012
The court applied the principle that costs follow the event, found no reason to defer costs pending any application for leave to appeal, accepted the respondents' undisputed quantification, and awarded costs of $2,256 to the respondents.