Far North District Council v Rightside Properties Limited

[2013] NZHC 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2012-488-881

UNDER the Building Act 2004

IN THE MATTER OF     an application for an injunction under the

Judicature Act 1908

BETWEEN  FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL Plaintiff

ANDRIGHTSIDE PROPERTIES LIMITED First Defendant

ANDNEAL ALAN SUMMERS Second Defendant

ANDCAMERON ENTERPRISES LIMITED Third Defendant

ANDFRANCES ROSE MACCULLOCH Fourth Defendant

Hearing:         7 January 2013 (At Auckland)

Appearances: J F Verry and B E McDonald for the Plaintiff

No appearance for First or Second Defendants

Fourth Defendant (F R MacCulloch) in person and informally on behalf of the Third Defendant

Judgment: 7 January 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

Counsel:

J F Verry, Email: [email protected]
B E McDonald. Email: [email protected]

Copy to:

F R MacCulloch. Email: [email protected]

[1]      The Kaikohe Hotel is in a state of disrepair, partial demolition and partial renovation.  It is a fire hazard which represents a significant risk to the safety of pub patrons, on-site management, permanent residents and backpackers who use it for temporary accommodation.    The plaintiff applies for interim orders directing the immediate closure of the building and the taking of steps to ensure no person has access to it until the further order of the Court.

[2]      There has been no appearance by the first and second defendants.  The fourth defendant, Ms MacCulloch, appears in person and on behalf of the third defendant of which she is the sole director.

[3]      For the  reasons  which  I will  give  in  writing in  due course,  I make the following orders on the application of the plaintiffs:

[a]       That the defendants ensure that the building known as the Kaikohe

Hotel, located at 67 Broadway Kaikohe, legally described as PT DP

8216 is not accessible to any person through the use of locked entrances,  hoardings,  fencing,  or  similar,  to  prevent  access  until further order of the court.

[b] The order in paragraph [a] does not apply to persons who are undertaking remedial works authorised by the Far North District Council and authorised by an independent qualified person to ensure compliance with the Building Act 2004.

[c]      Leave is reserved to all parties to apply to set aside or vary the first order made in [a] on three days notice to the other parties.

[d]      Costs are reserved.

[4]      I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a serious risk that the defendants will not act sufficiently promptly in response to these orders.   I record that Mr Verry, senior counsel for the plaintiff, has indicated that on the making of these orders the Council itself will take steps to ensure, with the assistance of local

police, that all persons who are currently resident or staying in the premises vacate immediately and by that I mean today, and that the Council will also take steps to ensure that further access is prevented until the further order of the court.

.............................

Toogood J