New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of registered instruments

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2019

DOUGLAS CRAIG SCHMUCK v OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 118

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 750
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that easements A4, A5, A6 and C, properly read in context and subject to the resource consents and management plan, were capable of being valid easements that accommodate the Boatyard land; s 48(1)(f) of the Reserves Act can authorise easements for purposes connected with other land including commercial activities where compatible with statutory purposes; the Minister's delegate acts in a supervisory consent role and was entitled to consent in 2015 without re-running the administering body's statutory process; the 2015 consent decision is reinstat…
9 Nov 2015

LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2015] NZHC 2771

Citation

(2015) 16 NZCPR 807
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Covenant was not rendered unenforceable by the club being incorporated as a limited liability company rather than an incorporated society; the Covenant binds the registered proprietor (Mr Vincent) because trusts are not disclosed on the register and registered proprietors take subject to registered covenants; plaintiffs had standing to enforce — International Golf Management as successor in title under s301(2)(c) Property Law Act 2007 and International Golf Course under s4 Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 — and relief was to be declared and formalised by order.
15 Sept 2015

KRIECHBAUM v JYRON INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] NZHC 2420

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2420
Court

High Court

The interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show any irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, the balance of convenience was heavily in favour of the defendant given the imminent sale, the plaintiff's claim was weak on the documented wording of the easement and titles, and practical delay and difficulties weighed against granting relief.
23 Apr 2010

PARIHOA FARMS LTD V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-000537

Citation

openlaw-2088aed7_ee84_40ac_a061_104736c0333c.pdf
Court

High Court

Court allowed partial exclusion of the defendant's affidavit evidence: paragraphs 9 and 30–54 and parts of 22 and 23 were excised as inadmissible; established in principle that evidence proving admitted facts is inadmissible and reserved leave to apply about specific paragraphs alleged to be excess; recognised affidavit was in wrong form and required conversion to a written brief; declined to preclude in principle the use of extrinsic evidence to interpret a registered instrument given developing authority, so refused to strike out all remaining contested evidence on relevance at the pre‑tria…

New Zealand Case Law

DOUGLAS CRAIG SCHMUCK v OPUA COASTAL PRESERVATION INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 118

LAKES INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT LIMITED v VINCENT [2015] NZHC 2771

KRIECHBAUM v JYRON INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] NZHC 2420

PARIHOA FARMS LTD V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-000537