New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lease covenants

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2019

SHELF COMPANY NO.5 LTD v FREMA PROPERTIES LTD [2019] NZHC 423

Citation

[2019] NZHC 423
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because on the limited record the Court could not be satisfied Frema's claim was untenable; factual uncertainty (absence of the lease and sale documents) left open the possibilities that a contrary intention under s 233(2) applied or that the lease had been cancelled before sale which would render s 233 inapplicable, so the claim could not be struck out as having no reasonably arguable cause of action.
20 Nov 2015

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177

Citation

[2015] NZSC 177
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and formulated three appellate questions: interpretation of the 'clean and tidy' lease clauses with respect to remediation, liability under an implied term against waste, and the temporal scope of any remediation obligation; the Court did not decide the substantive merits but allowed these issues to proceed to appeal.
5 Dec 2013

PROPRIETORS OF MARAETAHA NO. 2 SECTIONS 3 AND 6 BLOCK INC v WILLIAMS [2013] NZHC 3244

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3244
Court

High Court

Strike out of the first cause of action refused because resolution requires factual findings about the scope of the settlement and breaches after settlement; however the plaintiff must replead and particularise special damages for each cause of action, specifying the commencement condition(s), the specific failures to yield up, and the quantum of special damages claimed for rectification to restore the relevant 'like' condition; amended statement of claim to be filed by 16 December 2013; costs reserved; telephone case management set for early February 2014.
21 Dec 2011

HIEBER V REDDINGTON & ORS COA CA50/2011

Citation

openlaw-330c88e6_8ff5_46a2_9c3f_f0c5cee940d4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The guarantee was not discharged by the guarantor's death or by the DOCA because the trustees did not vote for the DOCA and the guarantee only lapsed on a change of ownership or assignment compliant with the lease (clause 35), which did not occur; acceptance of repudiation and precise date affecting quantum are factual issues for trial; summary judgment as to liability was correctly entered and quantum must be tried in the High Court.
15 Dec 2009

QUAY LEASE LTD V SHELL NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-001930

Citation

openlaw-13303180_dfa1_49df_ae7a_1ed39949ea93.pdf
Court

High Court

The s 85 Land Act 1948 rent rebate provision as incorporated into the lease constitutes a covenant that touches and concerns the land, affects the value of the reversion, and therefore runs with the reversion and binds Quay Lease; statutory and regulatory provisions preserved s 85's application to the lease and reference to the Minister of Finance retains effect.
9 Nov 2005

BALLANCE AGRI-NUTRIENTS (KAPUNI) LTD V THE GAMA FOUNDATION CA CA32/05

Citation

openlaw-f7e2152f_28c7_432a_b27a_e5f4d82f69e5.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Majority held s112(1) covers equitable as well as legal entitlement to the income of land so an unregistered purchaser (Foundation) who became equitable reversioner was entitled to enforce lease covenants; alternatively clause 45(a) and s4 Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 confer rights on permitted assigns/successors; appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

SHELF COMPANY NO.5 LTD v FREMA PROPERTIES LTD [2019] NZHC 423

MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177

PROPRIETORS OF MARAETAHA NO. 2 SECTIONS 3 AND 6 BLOCK INC v WILLIAMS [2013] NZHC 3244

HIEBER V REDDINGTON & ORS COA CA50/2011

QUAY LEASE LTD V SHELL NEW ZEALAND LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-001930

BALLANCE AGRI-NUTRIENTS (KAPUNI) LTD V THE GAMA FOUNDATION CA CA32/05