New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of instruments

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2016

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 167

Citation

[2016] NZSC 167
Court

Supreme Court

Read in context with the encumbrance and statutory background, the deed of covenant conferred substantive rights to use the parking spaces allocated to Lots 2 and 3 and to use the access-ways necessary for that use; those rights are enforceable in equity and the appellants can be restrained by injunction from denying the Body Corporate access and use; de-amalgamation did not terminate the deed's operation.
11 Mar 2015

MENZIES v OMANU HOLDINGS LTD [2015] NZHC 441

Citation

[2015] NZHC 441
Court

High Court

The Court was not convinced the covenant, as conventionally interpreted, clearly incorporates the deposited plan prescription but held there is a tenable, qualifying rectification issue to be tried; on the balance of convenience and overall justice an interim injunction should issue restraining the defendant from proceeding inconsistent with the plaintiffs' claimed height restrictions until final resolution, and the final application should be given a priority fixture.
24 Jun 2009

YOUNG V STOLTEN AND ORS CA CA535/2008

Citation

openlaw-c11dccfa_7a62_4c1f_a298_0521de82b20a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Memorandum of Transfer must be read as a whole and, despite inelegant drafting, created a general scheme conferring mutual benefits and burdens on the lots; the respondents therefore had an indefeasible right to enforce the covenants and the Associate Judge correctly granted summary judgment and an injunction to restrain building on Lot 2.

New Zealand Case Law

ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 167

MENZIES v OMANU HOLDINGS LTD [2015] NZHC 441

YOUNG V STOLTEN AND ORS CA CA535/2008