Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited v District Court at Auckland
[2015] NZSC 188
•10 December 2015
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 108/2015 [2015] NZSC 188 |
| BETWEEN | ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY‑ONE LIMITED KALLINA LIMITED |
| AND | DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND BODY CORPORATE 341188 GEORGE VICTOR WILKINSON AND JEREMY KAY COLLINGE AND ORS AUCKLAND COUNCIL CHANG TJUN CHONG AND ORS |
| Court: | Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ |
Counsel: | J G Miles QC, T J Herbert and R P Thomas for Applicants |
Judgment: | 10 December 2015 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ALeave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:
Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
CWe make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
The approved ground allows for all three questions set out at [47] of the applicant’s submissions to be advanced on appeal.
We accept the submissions of both the applicants and the second to twelfth respondents that service of the proceedings on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents (the unit holders in the second respondent other than the third to twelfth respondents) is unnecessary given that their interests are represented by the second respondent, they have taken no steps in the High Court or Court of Appeal and they have confirmed in writing that they do not wish to participate in the appeal to this Court.
Solicitors:
Goodwin Legal, Auckland for Applicants
Legal Vision, Auckland for Second to Twelfth Respondents
0
0
0