New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Landlocked land

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2022

PENNINGTON TRUST COMPANY LTD [2022] NZHC 2332

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2332
Court

High Court

Although the applicant had de facto physical vehicular and pedestrian access, absence of any legal right to cross NA565/251 meant 11 Mozeley Ave is landlocked under the Property Law Act 2007; after considering the mandatory s329 factors (historical access, circumstances of landlocking, conduct, and comparative hardship) and finding significant hardship to applicant and minimal proven prejudice to adjoining owners, the Court granted a right of way under s328, to be registered and subject to the implied covenants and Schedule 5 rights and obligations.
18 Feb 2022

FREEDOM VENTURES LTD v L’ESTRANGE-CORBET & ORS [2022] NZHC 227

Citation

[2022] NZHC 227
Court

High Court

Claims premised on installation or reinstatement of billboards disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action because Freedom Ventures lacked any present right or resource consent to install billboards; however claims limited to existing access for maintenance and to resolve the boundary/encroachment could survive; accordingly the Court stayed the proceeding pending grant of resource consent or further order rather than striking out entirely.
16 Aug 2016

DOOLEY v STURGESS CONSULTING LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1905

Citation

(2016) 18 NZCPR 400
Court

High Court

The Court applied the willing buyer/willing seller test under Jacobsen and the statutory framework (ss 328–330 and s329), accepted valuation evidence that legal access increased the plaintiff's property value by $200,000, applied 27% of that increase ($54,000) together with proven construction, conveyancing, grazing-diminution and pre-issue legal costs to reach reasonable compensation of $96,000, refused separate betterment and significant diminution awards where not proven, and ordered the right of way subject to agreed terms including a 25% maintenance contribution by the grantee.
27 May 2015

MACKEN v JERVIS [2015] NZHC 1146

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1146
Court

High Court

Respondents are entitled to costs on the standard Category 2B basis; indemnity or increased costs are not warranted because both parties acted unreasonably at times and the without prejudice except as to costs offers did not justify departure from the standard rule; expert disbursements are left to the Registrar to assess (may call for report) and costs of the costs hearing are not awarded.
23 Dec 2014

MACKEN V JERVIS [2014] NZHC 3408

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3408
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because 24 Wiles Avenue was not "landlocked" under s 326: the owner has reasonable access (pedestrian and vehicular access to the boundary/roadside) and the inability to drive into the garage stemmed from the Trust's own error in the subdivision process and registration of easements; the jurisdictional precondition for an order under s 327 was therefore absent.
14 Jul 2014

GREENSLADE & ORS V HONEYMOON BAY HOLDINGS LIMITED CA39/2013 [2014] NZCA 315 [14 July 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the lot was not landlocked because the combined sea and pedestrian access was, on the facts, reasonable for permitted use; alternatively, even if access were marginal, relief was denied because the appellants knew the access situation when purchasing, failed to negotiate in good faith, had potential alternative access via the Ryder right of way, and had not demonstrated that hardship or compensation considerations required ordering vehicular access over HBH's driveway.
9 Apr 2014

WAGG v SQUALLY COVE FORESTRY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 745

Citation

[2014] NZHC 745
Court

High Court

The first defendants, as the successful party on appeal, are entitled to costs in the High Court. No reduction of costs was warranted despite settlement/offers changing during trial because the Court of Appeal considered the plaintiffs would not have accepted the amended offer. The appropriate category for costs is 2B (not 2C). Specific claimed items are disallowed: 4.5 days for opposing joinder and subpoena, 8 days for items 7.3 and 7.4, and the hearing allowance is adjusted to 4 days (site visit day not claimed).
4 Oct 2013

SQUALLY COVE FORESTRY PARTNERSHIP v WAGG & ORS CA747/2013 [2013] NZCA 463

Citation

[2013] 3 NZLR 793
Court

Court of Appeal

The statutory definition of landlocked focuses on the existing state of reasonable physical access; offers of alternative access are relevant to the discretionary decision under s328 but do not prevent land being 'landlocked' for the first stage; here the properties were landlocked in existing state, but because the yellow road offer was on reasonable terms and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the red road order (blue road deficiency), the appellate court quashed the High Court order and declined to grant relief.
11 Dec 2012

ROSS WEBBER GREENSLADE V HONEYMOON BAY HOLDINGS LIMITED HC NEL CIV 2010-442-156

Citation

openlaw-0937d46a_5e0f_44fe_98a0_9f0c22ceb00d.pdf
Court

High Court

The combination of formed foot access down a 285m sealed driveway and practicable sea access provides access of a nature and quality reasonably necessary for residential use in this beachfront locality; therefore the lot is not landlocked under s328. Even if the lot were landlocked, discretionary relief would have been refused given plaintiffs' knowledge at purchase, unchanged historical arrangements, inadequate pursuit of alternatives and likely hardship from increased parking/congestion.
21 Nov 2012

LYONS V BRESLIN HC AK CIV-2009-404-7165

Citation

openlaw-cc9fef4a_809f_468a_9ef6_b86990526a94.pdf
Court

High Court

Balancing Rule 14.6 factors and the parties' conduct the court concluded the first defendants sought a statutory indulgence but their claim was not hopeless; r14.6(d) justified increased costs though less than claimed; awarded plaintiffs costs of $121,000 and approved expert disbursement for Mr Baikie reduced to $26,000 producing total disbursements of $69,242.14.