Johns Road Horticultural Limited v Powell

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-288

[2023] NZHC 255

BETWEEN JOHNS ROAD HORTICULTURAL LIMITED
Applicant

AND

JOHN WILLIAM POWELL

First Respondent

AND

DEVONDALE NURSERIES LIMITED

Second Respondent

AND

BELFAST VILLAGE CENTRE LIMITED

Interested Party

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Party directed to be served

Hearing: 21 February 2023

Appearances:

A L Davidson and S D Munro for Applicant

S P Rennie for John Powell Ltd and Devondale Nurseries Ltd M K Prendergast for Belfast Village Centre Ltd
A Hill for Attorney-General

Judgment:

21 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The parties have reached agreement on the removal of the easements in question and I formally make the orders that are sought in both applications.

[2] A brief written decision setting out my reasons for granting the applications will issue in due course.

JOHNS ROAD HORTICULTURAL LIMITED v POWELL [2023] NZHC 255 [21 February 2023]

[3]As agreed, costs are to lie where they fall.

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch Rhodes & Co., Christchurch
Hornabrook MacDonald, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

Copy To:
M K Prendergast, Barrister, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the High Court was a dispute involving Johns Road Horticultural Limited, the applicant, and John William Powell, the first respondent. Devondale Nurseries Limited was the second respondent, and Belfast Village Centre Limited was an interested party. The central issue was the removal of certain easements that were causing a dispute between the parties. The Attorney-General was also directed to be served with the proceedings. The hearing took place on 21 February 2023, with the court delivering its judgment on the same day. The case was presided over by Justice Dunningham, and the applicant was represented by A L Davidson and S D Munro, while John Powell and Devondale Nurseries Ltd were represented by S P Rennie. M K Prendergast represented Belfast Village Centre Ltd, and A Hill appeared for the Attorney-General.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the validity of the easements in question and the circumstances under which they could be removed. The court had to consider the agreement reached by the parties and determine whether the removal of the easements was in the best interest of all parties involved. Additionally, the court had to address the issue of costs and determine whether they should lie where they fell, as per the agreement between the parties.

Justice Dunningham granted the applications to remove the easements as per the agreement between the parties. The judge formally made the orders sought in both applications and noted that a brief written decision setting out the reasons for granting the applications would be issued in due course. The court also ordered that costs were to lie where they fell, in line with the agreement between the parties. The case was concluded with the solicitor's details and the parties that were to receive copies of the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	JOHNS ROAD HORTICULTURAL LIMITED Applicant
AND	JOHN WILLIAM POWELL First Respondent
AND	DEVONDALE NURSERIES LIMITED Second Respondent
AND	BELFAST VILLAGE CENTRE LIMITED Interested Party
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Party directed to be served