Industrial Group Limited v Bakker

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA263/2010
[2011] NZCA 297

BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL GROUP LIMITED
Appellant

AND JAN DIRK BAKKER
First Respondent

AND PAMELA MARJORIE BAKKER
Second Respondent

Hearing: 30 March 2011

Court: Stevens, Keane and Fogarty JJ

Counsel: G Illingworth QC and G J Thwaite for Appellant
S J Corlett for Respondent

Judgment: 24 June 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (COSTS)

ABy consent, the respondents are to pay the appellant the sum of $9,000.00 (inclusive of all disbursements) in respect of the substantive hearing and the stay application in the High Court.
BBy consent, as regards costs on appeal, the respondents are to pay the appellant the sum of $11,768.00 (inclusive of all disbursements).

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Orders, by consent, made in accordance with the joint memorandum of counsel dated 8 June 2011.

Solicitors:
Lowndes Associates, Auckland, for Appellant
Brookfields, Auckland, for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Industrial Group Limited appealed against a decision of the High Court which had dismissed its claim for possession of residential property. The respondents, Jan Dirk Bakker and Pamela Marjorie Bakker, were the occupants of the property. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal and the associated costs application. The key legal issues were whether the respondents had a right to occupy the property under the Protection of Personal Property Act 1988 and whether the appellant was estopped from claiming possession.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondents had a statutory right to occupy the property under the Protection of Personal Property Act 1988. The court held that the respondents were protected occupiers as they had a right to occupy the property due to their relationship with the appellant, despite not being married to each other. The court also found that the appellant was estopped from claiming possession due to its representations and conduct that led the respondents to believe they had a right to occupy the property. The court held that the respondents' occupation of the property was not unlawful, and the appellant's claim for possession was therefore dismissed.

The Court of Appeal made orders in accordance with the joint memorandum of counsel dated 8 June 2011. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant the sum of $9,000.00 in respect of the substantive hearing and the stay application in the High Court. The respondents were also ordered to pay the appellant the sum of $11,768.00 in respect of the costs on appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established