New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of restrictive covenants

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2017

TELFER ELECTRICAL NELSON LIMITED v KENNETH JOHN TROTTER [2017] NZHC 3155

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3155
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a serious question to be tried: the restraint was poorly drafted (12 months to commence only after a shareholder ceases to be party, yielding uncertainty as to duration post-employment), it was not tailored to protect a specified legitimate proprietary interest, the claimant had an imbalance of bargaining power and the covenantor lacked independent legal advice, and NZESL was not the same or a sufficiently similar business to TENL (contractor vs wholesaler); moreover damages were an adequate remedy.
19 Dec 2013

MACRAE AND ANOR V WALSHE AND ORS CA814/2012 [2013] NZCA 664

Citation

(2013) 15 NZCPR 254
Court

Court of Appeal

Windmill House is a dwelling in ordinary meaning and the easement as written limits use to servicing only one dwelling on the dominant land and naturally related ancillary purposes; the easement should be modified under s317(1) to operate in favour of both Lot 1 DP 387905 and Lot 2 DP 387905 with terms reflecting that limitation; compensation under s317(2) is to be assessed on a willing buyer/willing seller basis and, applying that test and the facts, reasonable compensation is $100,000 plus sealing and reasonable registration/legal costs; High Court compensation and 50% costs uplift were qua…
18 Dec 2012

DOUGLAS V MORGAN HC HAM CIV-2012-419-1061

Citation

openlaw-05b96a7c_d75f_4767_ace2_6b6633b5f419.pdf
Court

High Court

The covenants in the Transfer, read as a whole, restrict each original Meadow Park Heights allotment to one dwellinghouse and one ancillary building; subdivision of Lot 5 does not automatically breach those covenants and the subdivision works to date did not constitute a prohibited "commercial activity" under covenant 1.5; however the operation of Henry Morgan Builders from Lot 2 amounted to a commercial activity in breach of covenant 1.5 and, having failed to remedy after notice, triggered the contractual liquidated damages and indemnity provisions, entitling plaintiffs to $50,000 liquidated…
5 Sept 2012

DONNELLY V GIBBONS HC AK CIV-2012-404-3511

Citation

openlaw-718a6419_730b_49a4_ad3d_06767f028ebb.pdf
Court

High Court

The works did not, on their size, appearance and the farming context at the time of the covenant, qualify as "major structures" within the meaning of the restrictive covenant; the plaintiffs therefore had a low prospect of success on breach, the works were complete so no risk of further construction, and the balance of convenience (including minimal likely use and impact on a lessee) favoured refusal of interim injunctive relief.

New Zealand Case Law

TELFER ELECTRICAL NELSON LIMITED v KENNETH JOHN TROTTER [2017] NZHC 3155

MACRAE AND ANOR V WALSHE AND ORS CA814/2012 [2013] NZCA 664

DOUGLAS V MORGAN HC HAM CIV-2012-419-1061

DONNELLY V GIBBONS HC AK CIV-2012-404-3511