Austin v Rentrezi 2 Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 61 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2019-419-000070

[2021] NZHC 1027

BETWEEN NORMAN CLIVE AUSTIN and MARGARET IRENE AUSTIN
Plaintiffs

AND

RENTREZI 2 LIMITED

First Defendant

PRAGMA DESIGNER HOMES LIMITED
Second Defendant

AHL RENTALS LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 19 – 23 April 2021

Appearances:

V A Whitfield for Plaintiffs

T M Braun and U B Keller for First and Second Defendants No appearance by or for the Third Defendant

Judgment:

10 May 2021


JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J


This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 10 May 2021 at 12.00 noon

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

O’Sheas Barristers & Solicitors, Hamilton/V Whitfield, Cambridge Braun Bond & Lomas Ltd, Hamilton

AUSTIN v RENTREZI 2 LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1027 [10 May 2021]

Introduction

[1]    The plaintiffs, Norman and Margaret Austin, are the owners of a property located at 21 Hillary Street, Chedworth, Hamilton. Their property is accessed by a right of way.

[2]    The right of way is likely to have been created sometime in 1974 or perhaps 1975. Initially it provided access to two other lots as well. In 2006, these two lots were subdivided and two new lots were created. The largest of the new lots was ultimately purchased by the first defendant, Rentrezi 2 Ltd (“Rentrezi”).

[3]    Rentrezi has built four residential units on part of the lot it purchased. The construction works were carried out by the second defendant, Pragma Designer Homes Ltd (“Pragma”). The lot has been further subdivided and separate titles have issued for each of the new units and for the balance of the land. Rentrezi transferred the titles with the new units on them to Pragma, which in turn sold them to the third defendant, AHL Rentals Ltd (“AHL”). AHL retains the properties and the units are rented out to tenants. The tenants are using the right of way to access the units.

[4]    In broad terms, these proceedings concern the use made of the right of way by Rentrezi and Pragma when the units were being built and the use being made of the right of way by AHL’s tenants now that the units have been completed.

Background

The right of way

[5]    Hillary Street was previously a blind street terminating at the boundary of a large block of land. In 1973 this land was subdivided into a number of lots. The plan of the subdivision was deposited on 14 December 1973. It was allocated number DPS 17999. A copy of this plan is annexed – Annexure A.

[6]    Hillary Street became a formed cul de sac as a result of the subdivision. The head of the cul-de-sac was shown as lot 21 on DPS 17999. It was to vest in the Hamilton City Council as a street. DPS 17999 also showed a right of way coming off lot 21 to provide access to lots 3, 4 and 5 on the plan. Each of them,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Austin v Rentrezi 2 Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NZHC 1027
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Norman and Margaret Austin, sought a declaration that the benefit of a right of way over their property did not pass to the defendants who had subdivided the property and built residential units. They also sought an injunction, damages and declaratory relief against the defendants for nuisance and trespass. The defendants denied the claims and raised a number of defences, including consent and statutory authority. The Court found that the right of way was appurtenant to the property and attached to the subdivided lots. It found that the use of the right of way by the defendants was not excessive and did not unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs' rights. It found that the defendants had trespassed and committed a nuisance during construction, causing damage to the plaintiffs' property and services. It awarded the plaintiffs damages for the trespass and nuisance, but rejected their claim for exemplary damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.