New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation for improvements

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2022

MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST v WI HUATA [2021] NZHC 113

Citation

[2021] NZHC 113
Court

High Court

The option to purchase in the 1999 Heads of Agreement was not valid or binding because at the time trustees lacked statutory power to grant such an option under s228 of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993; moreover, even if statutory obstacles later fell away trustees remained obliged by the trust order and s172 to present and obtain owners' approval for any sale, which did not occur; further, defendants were in breach, made unconsented improvements and do not merit specific performance or compensation.
9 Dec 2013

HARRISON v FRIESWIJK [2013] NZHC 3267

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3267
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff failed to establish that an order for sale was inevitable; material issues under s342 (including comparative hardship, market value impact, and possible compensation for improvements) could not be resolved on the affidavit material and require full trial resolution, so the application must proceed to trial.
22 Aug 2012

MCCABE V MAORI TRUSTEE HC AK CIV 2011-404-005428

Citation

openlaw-c802c6ea_1f61_4574_afe3_3a851d44a3bf.pdf
Court

High Court

The applications were dismissed because the applicants failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim they could not have raised earlier: the lease and statutory scheme confined compensation to the renewal context, the alleged improvements appear to have become part of the land rather than removable fixtures, unjust enrichment failed as the works were voluntary and applicants' own default led to cancellation, and the matters could in any event have been raised in the underlying proceeding.

New Zealand Case Law

MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST v WI HUATA [2021] NZHC 113

HARRISON v FRIESWIJK [2013] NZHC 3267

MCCABE V MAORI TRUSTEE HC AK CIV 2011-404-005428