382 Colombo Street Limited v Frame and Mirror Limited

[2025] NZHC 3060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-524

[2025] NZHC 3060

BETWEEN

382 COLOMBO STREET LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

FRAME AND MIRROR LIMITED

First Defendant

HITESH RAVJI

Second Defendant

Hearing:

2 October 2025

Counsel:

D Jackson for Plaintiff

No appearance for First Defendant (direction in Court) Second Defendant in-person

Judgment:

15 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

382 COLOMBO STREET LIMITED v FRAME AND MIRROR LIMITED [2025] NZHC 3060

[15 October 2025]

[1]                 This proceeding is an unopposed application for summary judgment. Judgment is only sought against the first defendant. The summary judgment application was called in this Court on 2 October 2025. The second defendant appeared in person and Mr Graeme Patching, a director of the first defendant, Frame and Mirror Limited, also appeared.

[2]                 Settlement terms have been agreed between the plaintiff and the second defendant, Mr Ravji. No judgment is sought against him.  The proceeding against  Mr Ravji is adjourned to 11.00 am on 19 March 2026 to monitor his compliance with settlement. A discontinuance against him is likely to follow if the right of way in issue in this proceeding remains clear.

[3]                 Terms have not been agreed with the first defendant and judgment is sought against that company.

[4]                 The background to this proceeding is contained in a judgment of Preston J, granting the plaintiff an interim injunction requiring the defendants to keep a right of way clear of obstruction.1

[5]                 The plaintiff owns Lot 1 DP 3942 (Certificate of Title CB291/293), which has the benefit of a registered right of way easement over the defendants’ land, created in 1959.

[6]                 The easement grants vehicular access from Wordsworth Street across properties to the north, including land owned by Frame and Mirror Ltd.

[7]                 The easement is registered on Frame and Mirror Ltd’s title. Registration under the Land Transfer Act 2017 provides indefeasible title to the easement interest.

[8]                 The terms of the easement grant broad rights of access. There can be no dispute about the existence, validity, or scope of the easement as it relates to Lot 1.

1      382 Colombo Street Ltd v Frame and Mirror Ltd [2025] NZHC 2524.

[9]                 The uncontested evidence is that Frame and Mirror Ltd has obstructed the right of way by placing vehicles, containers, storage sheds and other obstructions on the right of way. While Mr Patching has stopped parking his own personal vehicle on the easement, other obstructions remain.

[10]             It is also of great concern to the Court that Frame and Mirror Ltd has not complied with the interim injunction orders made by Preston J.

[11]             Mr Jackson, counsel for the plaintiff, responsibly addresses the defences that might have been available to Frame and Mirror Ltd.

[12]             Frame and Mirror Ltd may argue that using the easement for construction traffic exceeds the scope of the 1959 grant intended for residential access.

[13]             This argument fails. Grinskis v Lahood, establishes that easement use may intensify with changed use of the dominant tenement, provided its essential character remains unchanged. The plaintiff’s development is residential in nature which is consistent with the original grant.2

[14]             The Council’s resource consent specifically validated the right of way as suitable for the development’s access requirements, providing some confirmation that the Council considered the proposed use falls within the easement’s scope. I accept that is the case.

[15]             I also accept Mr Jackson’s submission that the possibility of alternative access available to the plaintiff, is irrelevant. The plaintiff enjoys a registered right of way and is entitled to use it.

[16]             I also reject an argument made by Mr Patching that somehow a “party wall” easement has extinguished the vehicular right of way. I accept the submission that the two easements serve different purposes and the status of one has no bearing on the other.

2      Grinskis v Lahood [1971] NZLR 502 (SC).

[17]             Mr Jackson advises of  matters that have arisen  directly between him and  Mr Patching. None of those matters provide a defence.

[18]             I am satisfied this is an appropriate case to grant summary judgment. The plaintiff’s rights under its easements are clear, as is the evidence that the right of way has been obstructed.

[19]             Permanent injunctive relief is sought by way of summary judgment. Such an order can be made by an Associate Judge in a summary judgment application.3 I am satisfied it is appropriate that the interim order made by Preston J become a permanent injunction as again, the plaintiff has a clear legal right and Frame and Mirror Ltd continues to infringe that right. This is a situation where damages would not be an adequate remedy as the plaintiff requires access for its development work and the balance of convenience strongly favours the plaintiff.

[20]             The statement of claim also sought damages for trespass and unlawful interference with easement rights. In respect of those claims, summary judgment is sought for liability pursuant to r 12.3 of the High Court Rules 2016 with quantum acknowledged to be a matter that is not suitable for summary judgment.

[21]             Accordingly, I am satisfied that 382 Colombo Street Ltd has demonstrated that Frame and Mirror Ltd does not have a reasonably arguable defence to the orders sought.

[22]I make the following orders:

(1)Adjournment of the proceeding  against the second defendant until  19 March 2026 (expecting a discontinuance to be filed assuming compliance with the settlement has continued);

(2)Summary judgment against the first defendant declaring the plaintiff’s right to use the registered easement;

3      See Senior Courts Act 2016, ss 20(1)(a), 21 and 22(4).

(3)A permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from obstructing the right of way;

(4)Judgment on liability for damages for trespass and unlawful interference with easement rights, with quantum to be assessed at trial;

(5)Costs of the summary judgment application on a 2B basis; and

(6)Leave to pursue contempt proceedings by way of interlocutory application in this proceeding.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
MDS Law, Christchurch (for Plaintiff)

Copy to counsel:

D Jackson, Barrister, Christchurch (for Plaintiff)