New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse possession

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2021

DONNA MARIE JOHNSON v BONNIE JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 624

Citation

[2021] NZHC 624
Court

High Court

The historical transfers and Crown grant evidence demonstrate the land became and remains general land; as registered proprietor by transmission the plaintiff (executor) has the legal right to possession and to sell the land; the transportable buildings and livestock are not fixtures and remain the occupier's personal property; accordingly summary judgment and orders for possession (with a delayed effective date) and a declaration of power to sell are warranted, with costs to the plaintiff on the District Court scale.
20 Nov 2019

KORO PUE WHĀNAU TRUST v TAPATU, CHRISTINE TAPATU [2019] NZHC 3034

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3034
Court

High Court

Leave to enforce the Māori Land Court injunction is granted because the delay was adequately explained, the Liable Parties continue to trespass and have not identified prejudice from enforcement, and the High Court's jurisdiction on this application is limited to granting leave under the High Court Rules r17.9(2)(b).
2 Sept 2016

OʼREGAN v PUBLIC TRUST & ORS [2016] NZHC 2084

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2084
Court

High Court

The plaintiff disclosed no reasonably arguable equitable or prescriptive interest in the land; transmission to the Public Trust and subsequent sale to a bona fide purchaser for value were lawful and rendered title indefeasible; there was no evidence of fraud or improper exercise of discretion by the Registrar-General, so all causes of action were untenable and the statement of claim was struck out.
10 Dec 2013

EDMUNDS v LAUDER AND ANOR [2013] NZHC 3286

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3286
Court

High Court

Indemnity or increased costs refused because only some Rule 14.6(4) factors arguably applied, there was at least some evidentiary basis for the adverse possession claim, discovery defaults were remedied without demonstrated substantial extra expense, and the plaintiffs' conduct did not objectively justify costs above scale; accordingly 2B costs awarded and caveat removed.
22 Oct 2013

EDMUNDS v LAUDER [2013] NZHC 2770

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2770
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that occupiers of section 120 were in adverse possession of the disputed wedge as at 1932 with the necessary intention to possess; familial/common ownership and available evidence supported an inference of accommodation rather than adversity, therefore adverse possession did not mature and the claim must be dismissed.
8 Jul 2009

TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOR V THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ORS HC WHA CIV 2008-488-548

Citation

openlaw-cc63f9f7_bb51_4c65_8d22_480f7cf24c90.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's decision refusing security for costs was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion; the plaintiffs' claim has sufficient substance and public interest character such that ordering security would risk denying access to justice, and the fourth defendants failed to establish that the Associate Judge was wrong on principle or plainly wrong in weighing the merits and public interest factors; accordingly the review is dismissed.
27 Feb 2009

SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE LIMITED V THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-1013

Citation

openlaw-69270b90_89dc_4c09_90ac_367389624e6c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held Southern Agriculture's title remains limited as to parcels (the 1973 omission was an error), the historical descriptions lacked bearings and could not be transposed onto the ground with sufficient certainty, and therefore the long-standing fence line, established and acquiesced in before the first certificate of title, should be treated as the legal boundary; the fence was not shown to be a 'give and take' fence but, alternatively, Te Kamaru established adverse possession under s 79 for land west of the fence; accordingly Plan 375401 reflecting the fence line should be deposite…
23 Dec 2008

ROMILY HOLDINGS LIMITED V MAGENTA INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-006298

Citation

openlaw-2841d363_9ade_4dad_8dfe_4f6dab624a53.pdf
Court

High Court

No arguable adverse possession claim existed because the encroachment occurred after the neighboring land was brought under the Torrens system in 1938 and no s200 application had been made; relief for a wrongly placed structure does not create a present caveatable interest absent court orders; although the caveat's wording marginally conveyed an adverse possession claim by reference to s200, no substantive arguable interest was shown and therefore the caveat could not be sustained.
6 Sept 2005

BOSKETT & ANOTHER V DRUMMOND & ORS HC NEL CIV 2005-442-121

Citation

openlaw-21ae13b1_dbb1_48bb_8371_f570308e335c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Bosketts failed to establish an arguable case of continuous adverse possession for the statutory 20 years because the evidence showed the Drummonds, while owning CT 2A/246 between 1996 and 2002, asserted ownership and possession of the disputed area (surveying and erecting a boundary fence), thereby interrupting the exclusive adverse possession required by s3 of the 1963 Act; accordingly the caveat could not be sustained.