New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vesting of road

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2023

THE GRANGE PARK LIMITED [2023] NZHC 396

Citation

[2023] NZHC 396
Court

High Court

Leave to commence by originating application was granted and the covenant 11728484.3 was extinguished under s317(1)(d) because the covenant's benefit was spent, Dreamland (the original covenantee) consented subject to the conditional requirement that extinguishment and deposit of plan LT: 554435 be registered in the same LINZ dealing, and proceeding without notice was justified to avoid undue delay or prejudice.
24 May 2022

Re Avlis Ltd [2022] NZHC 1157 ()

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1157
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to bring the application as an originating application because that procedure secures a just, speedy and inexpensive determination; the Court exercised its discretion to permit a without‑notice substantive filing to beneficiaries given the impracticability and prejudicial delay of serving numerous title holders, but required service on the territorial authority (Mackenzie District Council) and adjourned substantive determination to allow the Council to be heard and to file a memorandum within two weeks of service.
9 Apr 2020

Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 738

Citation

[2020] NZHC 738
Court

High Court

The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs because Green Land proved there were no outstanding sums or unperformed obligations secured by the defendants' mortgages, the 2017 irrevocable power of attorney (properly authorised via an express sub-delegation in the 2014 power) remained valid and authorised Green Land to apply to remove the mortgages, and the defendants showed no real defence to the claim for discharge of the mortgages.
4 Sept 2014

LINDSAY v NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2127

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2127
Court

High Court

The caveat protects an arguable equitable easement securing access from Lot 4 to Yaldhurst Road and therefore shall remain over Lots 11–17 but must lapse as to Lot 18 (Identifier 440802) because it is not required to protect the applicants' access; leave reserved to respondent to seek further lapsing if and when affected land vests in Christchurch City Council; costs reserved.
16 Apr 2014

LINDSAY v NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 799

Citation

[2014] NZHC 799
Court

High Court

The caveat must not lapse on the present evidence because the caveators have established a reasonably arguable equitable easement protecting rights of access and services (excluding stormwater) arising from the 2002 agreement; stormwater was not within the contractually defined "services" and is not reasonably arguable; Special Condition 19.2 imposed only the defined limited carriageway obligation and not an undertaking to vest, and Special Condition 23 did not create a caveatable interest in Noble's land; because of the unresolved impasse over the spine road and inability to predict vesting,…
5 Mar 2013

PHILPOTT V NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002984

Citation

openlaw-29983e7a_6830_436c_a4f8_dbbd74f99356.pdf
Court

High Court

The caveators had reasonably arguable equitable easement interests such that the caveats should not lapse; the Court therefore refused wide-ranging applications to remove or materially alter the protective effect of the caveats but made limited, specific amendments to its June 2012 orders to correct typographical errors and to permit a partial lapse of Caveat 2 insofar as a portion of Lot 19 overlaps the land required for the spine road, while dismissing applications by both sides that would prematurely alter protection (including requiring immediate discharge or easement registration or excl…

New Zealand Case Law

THE GRANGE PARK LIMITED [2023] NZHC 396

Re Avlis Ltd [2022] NZHC 1157 ()

Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 738

LINDSAY v NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2127

LINDSAY v NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 799

PHILPOTT V NOBLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002984