New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trespass to land

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2023

SAHAR EHSANI INVESTMENT LIMITED v RETYRED (2020) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2258

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2258
Court

High Court

Defendants were found liable on the breach of lease and trespass claims; the appropriate measure of damages for the lease breach was the plaintiff's claimed cost of repair discounted by 5% because the lease had less than four years to run and it was likely the plaintiff would effect remediation or terminate the lease early; award for breach of lease was $1,645,262.39; injunction granted restraining agents/employees of the first defendant from entering the 179 Dominion Road driveway; general damages of $5,000 and exemplary damages of $20,000 awarded against the first defendant for repeated, hi…
28 Nov 2022

CHAMBERLAIN v CHAMBERLAIN [2022] NZHC 3121

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3121
Court

High Court

The injunction application was effectively determined in the applicant's favour by the defendant's without‑admission undertaking, so costs of that interlocutory application are fixed now and awarded to Kenneth on a 2B basis; the High Court transferred the damages claim (circa $12,475) to the District Court as unsuitable for the High Court; the defendant is ordered personally to pay the Estate's costs in the probate proceeding on a 2B basis plus disbursements and the Estate is authorised to deduct those costs from the defendant's share of the Estate.
14 Sept 2021

SPAK (1996) LIMITED v REECE LEROY [2021] NZHC 2398

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2398
Court

High Court

Defendant entitled to summary judgment because his conduct on each occasion fell within the scope of the registered pedestrian easement D3 (as building manager and agent of the body corporate) and therefore was not trespass; the plaintiff's proceeding was trivial, involved misrepresentation and constituted an abuse of process aimed at a collateral objective (removing the building manager); an Associate Judge lacks jurisdiction to punish for contempt under s16 Contempt of Court Act 2019, so the contempt application must be heard by a Justice; plaintiff's claim dismissed and costs awarded to de…
17 Apr 2018

HARBOUR CITY CONSTRUCTION 2012 LIMITED v LINK TECHNOLOGY 2000 LIMITED [2018] NZHC 686

Citation

[2018] NZHC 686
Court

High Court

The counterclaim is dismissed because the defendants failed on the balance of probabilities to prove the presence and/or value of the asserted items on the property and therefore failed to prove conversion; Harbour City acted reasonably as an involuntary bailee; accordingly the counterclaim fails and Harbour City is entitled to costs on a scale 2B basis.
5 Apr 2018

HIKURANGI FOREST FARMS LTD v NEGARA DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2018] NZHC 607

Citation

[2018] NZAR 804
Court

High Court

SB Developments' and subsequently Negara's registrations conferred indefeasible title to the trees on Area C because Hikurangi failed to prove the fraud exception in s182 (no actual knowledge or wilful blindness by the purchasers before registration). Equitable remedies (estoppel, constructive trust, breach of give-and-take contract) failed for lack of the necessary factual elements (knowledge, clear representation, reasonable detrimental reliance and unconscionability) after registration. The Property Law Act s323 relief was unavailable. Hikurangi's 2015 felling amounted to trespass: Negara…
11 Aug 2017

BIGYARD HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) & ANOR v TASMANDAIRY LIMITED & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1918

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1918
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because material disputes of fact and credibility persisted about which assets were owned by Doxcon and subsequently transferred, the evidential foundation (valuation and asset lists) was contested, and further discovery and a trial were required; although Asset Finance held a perfected security and had a right to possession, equitable delivery up was inappropriate on the available material and the application had to be resisted.
22 Nov 2007

RANGATIRA FORESTS LIMITED V TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV-2006-483-199

Citation

openlaw-d30d17d3_1849_495f_ac87_862ad6f6fcc2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that Transit was estopped by its pleading from denying Rangatira's possession of the small areas, but that the damage caused by the formation of the highway fell within the protection of Public Works Act 1981 s60 (applying Nobilo), so common law monetary remedies were not available; the Court therefore granted a limited declaration of trespass (use of section 19 up to 22 November 2007) and dismissed the plaintiff's damages claims.
21 Sept 2006

GREGORY V GOLLAN AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005 - 404-3485

Citation

openlaw-2f200204_7452_45bc_9716_3eda17f6c67a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that s19A(5) jurisdiction existed and, exercising its discretion, ordered trial by judge alone because the case raised multiple interdependent causes of action and mixed questions of law and fact (notably implied licence to enter, validity of arrest under s315, and ACC-related limits on damages) such that jury management would be impracticable and unduly time-consuming; the order was granted by a narrow margin.
6 Apr 2006

WAUGH V A-G FOR NZDF HC AK CIV 2002-404-002097

Citation

openlaw-76e3c961_6718_4ea9_b00b_694cfb422bf8.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiffs did not acquiesce and were entitled to damages for wrongful use; damages were assessed by estimating an annual rental of the whole property (7% of land value $810,000 = $56,700), multiplying by the claim period (8.34 years = $472,878), discounting by 75% to reflect subsurface nature (divide by four) to yield $118,220, plus interest from 3 July 2004 to date of judgment and costs.