Baker v Hodder�

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 94/2017
[2017] NZSC 171

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER DUNCAN BAKER AND KATHRYN ANN BAKER Applicants
AND	WALLACE DOUGLAS HODDER AND ANN ADELE HODDER First Respondents KADD FARM LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	J W Maassen and S F Clark for Applicants M E Parker and J Eckford for First Respondents
Judgment:	17 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The parties’ submissions should address both the question of mootness and the substantive issues that the applicants wished to have determined in the Court of Appeal. That will allow this Court to determine whether to remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for hearing or determine the substantive issues itself in the event that the appeal on the question of mootness is allowed.

Solicitors:
Cooper Rapley Lawyers, Palmerston North for Applicants
Park Cowan, Queenstown for First Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baker v Hodder, the applicants, Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed their appeal. The respondents were Wallace Douglas Hodder and Ann Adele Hodder, along with Kadda Farm Limited. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act 2010, specifically regarding the extinguishment of a prescriptive easement over a rural property.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants' appeal, particularly in light of the Court of Appeal's determination that the applicants' appeal was moot. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing their appeal on the grounds of mootness and sought clarification on the substantive issues regarding the prescriptive easement.

The Supreme Court, in granting leave to appeal, acknowledged the importance of addressing both the mootness issue and the substantive matters raised by the applicants. The Court emphasised the need for the Court of Appeal to consider the substantive issues if the appeal on mootness was allowed. This decision ensured that the applicants' concerns regarding the prescriptive easement were properly examined, allowing for a comprehensive resolution of the dispute.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established