New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Easement

Legal area

Court

29 May 2023

PARKLANE INFRASTRUCT LTD v LU TRUSTEE LTD (costs) [2023] NZHC 1309

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1309
Court

High Court

Plaintiff (through its agent) pressured and manipulated communications to create the appearance of a legal right of access when the defendant had no intention to grant such rights, acted in wilful disregard of known facts and made allegations that ought not to have been made; that conduct was vexatious, flagrant and exceptionally bad, justifying an award of indemnity (actual) costs to defendants in the amount established by their invoices and analysis.
26 May 2023

THORNLEY v FORD [2023] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1257
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs' substantive claims were dismissed; therefore plaintiffs must pay the first defendants' costs on a 2B scale subject to specific disallowances and a 20% reduction because the late transfer of the land to PPL (intended to thwart plaintiffs and extract trustees from litigation) materially and unnecessarily increased plaintiffs' costs; the defendants' letter proposing a new easement was not a formal settlement offer under r 14.6(3)(b)(v) and did not justify increased costs; no orders were made for interlocutory injunction costs because the file showed consent orders and costs were rese…
8 Nov 2022

RUBY & RATA LTD v REED [2022] NZHC 2928

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2928
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff was overall successful in securing protection against enforcement of the trespass notices, it pursued additional substantive interlocutory relief and failed; that pursuit increased costs and, applying r 14.7(d) High Court Rules 2016, the appropriate order is that costs lie where they fall.
19 Oct 2022

PARKLANE INFRASTRUCT Ltd v LU TRUSTEE Ltd [2022] NZHC 2702

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2702
Court

High Court

On an objective assessment of the access letter and surrounding communications a reasonable person would conclude the letter was a support/assurance for Parklane's discussions with KiwiBuild, not a grant of a binding legal interest; no enforceable contract was formed because there was no intention to be bound on essential terms and no consideration; Parklane did not establish estoppel; Parklane holds no easement; Parklane's caveats are invalid and must be removed.
7 Oct 2022

WHANARUA BEACHFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP INCORPORATED SOCIETY v ŌPŌTIKI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2022] NZHC 2589

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2589
Court

High Court

The Property Owners' legitimate expectation claim failed because the Council's statements were conditional, not a clear and unambiguous promise to grant an easement pre-transfer and any expectation of a substantive property right inconsistent with the statutory Reserves Act procedure was not reasonable or legitimate; consultation met statutory requirements and there was no disqualifying bias or irrelevant consideration affecting the Decision, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
6 Oct 2022

STOKES v THE ANGLICAN CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES Costs [2022] NZHC 2580

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2580
Court

High Court

Although the applicant ultimately obtained an order sustaining the caveat and an easement, he cannot recover solicitors' fees as a lay litigant and pre-proceeding legal fees incurred in 2017 are not costs of the proceeding; only disbursements reasonably incurred in the proceeding are recoverable, so the filing fee of $540 is awarded to the applicant; the respondent is not entitled to costs.
26 Aug 2022

MANAWA DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 2138

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2138
Court

High Court

The Court accepted that inclusion of Lot 101 as a servient tenement was a drafting error inconsistent with the original parties' intention, found the proposed modification would not substantially injure any person entitled because equivalent protections are recorded elsewhere, and that, given the impediment to reasonable use and significant commercial and contractual consequences, it was just and equitable under s317 PLA to modify the covenant by excising Lot 101 from the servient tenement description.
13 Apr 2022

FARRAND ORCHARDS LTD v KERIKERI IRRIGATION COMPANY LTD [2022] NZHC 765

Citation

[2022] NZHC 765
Court

High Court

FOL lacked standing to sue under the 2010 WSA because the contract was with FFT (the landowner); plaintiffs could not invoke undisclosed‑principal or transferred‑loss exceptions on these facts; no binding 2016 agreement was concluded to install a second meter; the WSA expressly required KI to supply to the meter boundary and made the User responsible for on‑property distribution so no implied term obliging KI to supply beyond its rights of access could be read in; no term implying a minimum psi was necessary or established; the restrictor valve fitted was an appropriate Maric 138 lpm flow con…
12 Apr 2022

FIRST GAS LIMITED v GIBBS [2022] NZHC 742

Citation

[2022] NZHC 742
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to First Gas Limited on the standard approach: costs follow the event. The dispute did not raise public interest grounds sufficient to displace ordinary costs rules; the proceedings were appropriately categorised as Category 2, Band B given their nature and complexity; the award covers the substantive hearing and the earlier interim injunction and variation applications whose costs were reserved; enforcement and stay issues to be litigated separately.
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.