New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable access

Legal area

Court

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.
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.
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.
17 May 2013

BRESLIN v LYONS COA CA189/2012

Citation

COA CA189/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Permanent parking on the servient strip was contrary to the grant of a right to go, pass and repass and would derogate from the dominant tenement's rights where, as a matter of fact, it would obstruct passage; the easement wording is appurtenant and binds title so the appellants cannot assert a contrary parking right; the appellants' land is not landlocked under the PLA because it enjoys reasonable vehicular access to the boundary and statutory and discretionary factors (including purchaser's knowledge) do not justify an order for reasonable access.
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.
4 May 2010

SAM MURRAY AND BRENDAN TUOHY V BC GROUP (2003) LTD, JOHN MOLYNEUX AND JUDITH SHIRLEY MOLYNEUX AND ORS CA CA137/2009

Citation

openlaw-ea6c2d53_6b48_4cf4_adde_a70c7a71f0d9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court was correct: the existing pedestrian public walkway in the hilly Wellington enclave constituted reasonable access under s129B; vehicular access is not automatically required; appellants failed to prove their land was landlocked and therefore relief under s129B was not available.
12 Feb 2009

MURRAY AND ANOR V BC GROUP (2003) LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-198

Citation

openlaw-7ad10aea_6088_48e9_983e_ecfb3c77b836.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the local topography and contemporary standards, the sealed council footpath of about 70 metres with a 15 metre elevation change (a 1–3 minute walk) provides reasonable physical access for residential use of No.3, so the land is not landlocked within s129B and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant vehicular access over neighbouring land.
19 Dec 2008

MACLAURIN V HEXTON HOLDINGS LTD CA CA212/07

Citation

openlaw-f5356440_ac84_4468_bd81_3f2586fcab86.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court erred by treating a mere right to apply for a resource consent or a resource consent under appeal as an operative 'right' for s 129B; only existing uses and operative rights/consents count for determining reasonable access; on the facts Hexton's land is not landlocked for its existing uses and the s 129B claim must be dismissed, quashing the High Court orders.
17 Apr 2007

B A TRUSTEES LIMITED V IVAN DRUSKOVICH AND ANOR CA CA142/05

Citation

openlaw-b98f8879_b2ec_468b_be0f_fb9a25611340.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The apartment constituted a "piece of land" for s129B purposes and was an authorised use; relief under s129B was appropriate given long established use and historical inadvertence, but the Court must tailor relief to avoid unfairness to the servient owner — accordingly an easement was granted only for the first floor apartment, including vehicular access, limited in duration (earlier of one year after the pharmacy lease terminates or 30 September 2019) and excluding benefit to the pharmacy lessee; the High Court compensation order was set aside and remitted for redetermination in light of the…