New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fixtures vs chattels

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v KIWI [2021] NZHC 2457

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2457
Court

High Court

Court found on balance of probabilities that 135 Kairua Road, two motor vehicles and two cash sums were funded by proceeds of methamphetamine dealing and are tainted property requiring forfeiture under s50 CPRA; the house at 224A Kairua Road, although funded with illicit proceeds, is a fixture on Māori freehold land and cannot be forfeited by the High Court because Te Ture Whenua Māori Act (specialized regime) governs alienation of Māori land and prevails over the CPRA in that domain.
4 Jun 2021

CALDWELL v JESSOP [2021] NZHC 1319

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1319
Court

High Court

Defendant conceded plaintiff's entitlement to vacant possession; accordingly the Court entered summary judgment for the plaintiff, granted the defendant a reasonable period (until 4:00 pm 2 July 2021) to vacate, confirmed that fixtures must remain and personal property may be removed, and awarded costs to the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
26 Feb 2018

ACTION FENCING LTD v ARK CONTRACTORS LTD [2018] NZHC 243

Citation

[2018] NZHC 243
Court

High Court

Costs normally follow the event; however, materially inaccurate submissions by counsel constitute conduct warranting reduction of costs. Applying that principle, the Court reduced the plaintiffs' costs award by 50% and ordered defendants to pay $2,675 to the plaintiffs.
24 May 2017

LAKES EDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2017] NZCA 504

Citation

[2017] NZCA 504
Court

Court of Appeal

The rock anchors were buried, fixed and intended to provide permanent land stabilisation required by resource and building consents; they accordingly became fixtures and part of the respective parcels of land owned from time to time, so their presence could not constitute a continuing trespass and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Sept 2016

LAKES EDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2141

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2141
Court

High Court

The rock anchors were sufficiently annexed and installed for the purpose of permanent land stability such that they acceded to the land (became fixtures); therefore they formed part of LEDL's land and could not, as a matter of law, give rise to an action in continuing trespass against KVHL; summary judgment for trespass dismissed.
28 Mar 2013

ARONUI KO HUIARAU TRUST BOARD V MARION AGNES EDWARDS AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2012-404-2731

Citation

openlaw-c21b9449_556a_4f5c_836b_1642e3270a0b.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment on liability was declined because genuine disputes of fact and credibility exist on essential issues — tenancy status on possession date, valid service of the 15 December 2011 notice to quit, classification of the kitchen items as fixtures or chattels, and whether Te Kaahu repudiated the tenancy — matters that require a full evidential hearing rather than resolution on affidavits.
18 Nov 2008

WHAITIRI POTATO COMPANY LIMITED V C R GRACE LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-454-543

Citation

openlaw-cf9cde97_5aa7_43ba_adf1_c7f4fe226877.pdf
Court

High Court

Crops planted and growing became annexed to the land and, absent an applicable emblements right, belonged to the landlords when the leases were terminated. Emblements did not apply because the leases were terminated by the tenant's own default (failure to pay rent and comply with covenants). Consequently the proceeds of sale belonged to the first and second respondents and liquidation could not affect their title.
29 Oct 2008

ERCEG V THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-006898

Citation

openlaw-7089c440_d7be_4185_90c3_f43e9a990e6e.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to show a serious issue to be tried: the $75,000 payment due under the amending deed was not paid by the notice date so the mortgagee was entitled to exercise its powers under the mortgage, and the plaintiff produced insufficient evidence that disputed items are fixtures or that the bank's conduct was oppressive under s120.
29 Oct 2008

IVJ ERCEG V THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-006898

Citation

openlaw-a12bf2da_d0f2_4c0f_a9fd_be00b9a8fe13.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was refused because the borrower had failed to pay the $75,000 instalment by the notice date rendering the mortgagee's notice valid and entitling the bank to exercise its powers; the alleged oral pre-condition to the amending deed was unsupported by the deed and evidence; the claimant failed to establish that items were fixtures such that the loan to value ratio was preserved; there was no serious issue to be tried and no basis for a stay.