Corboy v Pietersma - [2025] NZHC 3391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2025-463-000037

[2025] NZHC 3391

UNDER Section 334 of the Property Law Act 2017 and Part 20 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against a judgment of the District Court

BETWEEN

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORBOY and JUDITH MAUGHAN CORBOY

Appellants

AND

PAULA ANNE PIETERSMA

Respondent

Hearing: 3 November 2025

Appearances:

S T Scott for Appellants

No appearance for Respondent (abiding Court decision)

Judgment:

7 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 November 2025 at 4 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………………………..

Counsel/Solicitors:
S T Scott, Tauranga
Rejthar Stuart Law, Tauranga J K Mahuta-Coyle, Wellington Langley Twigg, Napier

CORBOY v PIETERSMA [2025] NZHC 3391 [7 November 2025]

[1] The plaintiffs, Michael Corboy and Judith Corboy (the Corboys), appeal the order of Judge J P Geoghegan made in the District Court in Tauranga in February 2025 dismissing their application for an order for the removal of trees from the property of the defendant, Paula Pietersma. They say the Judge exceeded his powers under the District Court Rules 2014 by making the order without giving them an opportunity to be heard and by directing the sealing of the Dismissal Order without any application from a party.

[2] Ms Pietersma took no part in the hearing of the appeal because she abided the Court’s decision.

Relevant background

[3] The Corboys and Ms Pietersma have adjacent properties at 21 and 19 Bryan Road, Ohiwa Beach, east of Opotiki. The Corboys reside at No 21, which overlooks Ms Pietersma’s property at No 19 Bryan Road. Ms Pietersma resides ordinarily in Napier but spends time at the Bryan Road property. An easement runs along the boundary of the two properties in which an underground drain and a surface swale were built to facilitate water runoff.

[4] In December 2022, the Corboys applied in the District Court in Tauranga for orders under ss 333–335 of the Property Law Act 2007 and r 20.13 of the District Court Rules, directing the removal or trimming of trees on Ms Pietersma’s property. The trees, principally King palms and Bangalow palms, were planted by Ms Pietersma and her former husband along their side of the easement area.

[5]The application was opposed by Ms Pietersma.

[6] Mr Corboys and Ms Pietersma each filed affidavits in support of their positions:

(a)Mr Corboys says the trees unreasonably obstruct the Corboys’ view from their property and unduly shade their property, thereby interfering with their ability to access light and to grow plants or crops. They say

the trees have significantly decreased the value of their property. They also say that, despite their efforts to negotiate an agreed resolution with Ms Pietersma, they have been unable to do so.

(b)Ms Pietersma says she planted the trees to afford privacy to her property. She acknowledges that some of the trees may adversely affect the Corboys’ view but disputes the scale…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Corboy v Pietersma 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: [2025] NZHC 3391
Decision Date: 7 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was called upon to review an appeal from an order made by the District Court dismissing an application for the removal of trees from a neighbouring property. The appellants, Michael and Judith Corboy, sought to overturn the dismissal of their application against Paula Pietersma, who owns the property with the trees in question. The Corboys argued that the District Court Judge had exceeded his powers by dismissing the application without allowing them an opportunity to be heard and by sealing the dismissal order without any application from a party. The legal issues before the Court were whether the District Court Judge erred in his decision to dismiss the application without giving the Corboys a chance to be heard, and whether the sealing of the dismissal order was appropriate. The Court found that the District Court Judge's decision to dismiss the application was flawed as it did not comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the District Court Rules. The Judge had the authority to dismiss the proceeding if it was frivolous or vexatious, but the decision appeared to be made without the necessary material to justify such a dismissal. Furthermore, the Judge's decision to seal the dismissal order without any party's application was also improper. The Court concluded that the Judge's order should be set aside, and the proceeding reinstated. The appeal was allowed, and the costs were reserved pending the outcome of the proceeding.

Orders