New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rights of way

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2019

A C RHODES LTD v BUSH INN SHOPPING CENTRE LTD [2019] NZHC 877

Citation

[2019] NZHC 877
Court

High Court

Plaintiff established a serious question to be tried and damages were inadequate because defendant had blocked long‑standing registered rights of way without providing comparable access; the balance of convenience and overall justice required a provisional mandatory injunction requiring defendant to practically create similar access pending registration of replacement easements, with leave to vary if implementation proves impossible.
27 May 2015

MACKEN v JERVIS [2015] NZHC 1146

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1146
Court

High Court

Respondents are entitled to costs on the standard Category 2B basis; indemnity or increased costs are not warranted because both parties acted unreasonably at times and the without prejudice except as to costs offers did not justify departure from the standard rule; expert disbursements are left to the Registrar to assess (may call for report) and costs of the costs hearing are not awarded.
23 Dec 2014

MACKEN V JERVIS [2014] NZHC 3408

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3408
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because 24 Wiles Avenue was not "landlocked" under s 326: the owner has reasonable access (pedestrian and vehicular access to the boundary/roadside) and the inability to drive into the garage stemmed from the Trust's own error in the subdivision process and registration of easements; the jurisdictional precondition for an order under s 327 was therefore absent.
19 Dec 2013

MACRAE AND ANOR V WALSHE AND ORS CA814/2012 [2013] NZCA 664

Citation

(2013) 15 NZCPR 254
Court

Court of Appeal

Windmill House is a dwelling in ordinary meaning and the easement as written limits use to servicing only one dwelling on the dominant land and naturally related ancillary purposes; the easement should be modified under s317(1) to operate in favour of both Lot 1 DP 387905 and Lot 2 DP 387905 with terms reflecting that limitation; compensation under s317(2) is to be assessed on a willing buyer/willing seller basis and, applying that test and the facts, reasonable compensation is $100,000 plus sealing and reasonable registration/legal costs; High Court compensation and 50% costs uplift were qua…
14 Sept 2006

MAWHINNEY V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 1999-404-001850

Citation

openlaw-8071506c_c96c_4863_ae8d_55c1c27437db.pdf
Court

High Court

The proceedings were struck out because the plaintiff's re‑litigation of the Council's s 91 determinations was barred by res judicata/estoppel given prior Environment Court and High Court decisions; there was no tenable basis for judicial review (mandamus/certiorari) or for common law damages for breach of statutory duty under the RMA; no duty of care in negligence could be recognised on the facts; and allegations of misfeasance in public office were not substantiated and could not be remedied by amendment to pleadings.

New Zealand Case Law

A C RHODES LTD v BUSH INN SHOPPING CENTRE LTD [2019] NZHC 877

MACKEN v JERVIS [2015] NZHC 1146

MACKEN V JERVIS [2014] NZHC 3408

MACRAE AND ANOR V WALSHE AND ORS CA814/2012 [2013] NZCA 664

MAWHINNEY V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 1999-404-001850