Legal Research
Cases
Ruby & Rata Limited v Reed

Ruby & Rata Limited v Reed

Case [2024] NZHC 3962 20 December 2024

Easements & Covenants

Adverse Possession

Summary Judgment

Interpretation of Easements

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-961

[2024] NZHC 3962

IN THE MATTER of section 313 Property Law Act 2007

UNDER

section 3 Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and part 18 High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

RUBY & RATA LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

ANTHONY PRIVETT REED and REED

TRUSTEE 2018 LIMITED (as trustees of THE EAGLE TRUST)

Defendants

Hearing: 15 October 2024

Appearances:

R O Parmenter for Plaintiff

D R Bigio KC and P G Senior for Defendants

Judgment:

20 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2024 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

RUBY & RATA LIMITED v REED [2024] NZHC 3962 [20 December 2024]

[1] Ruby & Rata Ltd (Ruby) and the trustees of the Eagle Trust (the Trust) are the respective owners of neighbouring rural blocks of land at Pukekohe. Ruby’s land enjoys a registered easement granting it rights of way over part of the Trust’s land. The parties have been in dispute over the easement, including other litigation in this Court. In a recent judgment, O’Gorman J held that Ruby could undertake certain work to create an additional gated entry point from the right of way onto its land and awarded it damages for interference with its rights.1

[2] Ruby has now filed this claim, seeking summary judgment for a declaration under s 3 of the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and s 313(1) of the Property Law Act 2007 in these terms:

…that lots resulting from a subdivision of Ruby’s land into 4 lots will be entitled to the benefits and be subject to the obligations of the [right of way] currently existing.

[3] The declaration does not relate to a specific proposed subdivision of Ruby’s land, albeit that Ruby has obtained a consent to subdivide its land into four lots. It seeks a declaration in respect to any subdivision of its land that will produce four lots. The statement of claim confirms that the detail of the subdivision Ruby ultimately may wish to undertake is “of as yet uncertain boundaries, which will require such subdivided lots to enjoy Ruby’s current rights under the [right of way]”.

[4] The Trust opposes the application. It argues summary judgment should not be granted, as upon a proper construction of the easement it does not benefit lots resulting from the subdivision of Ruby’s land, and the additional burden imposed upon the Trust’s land as a result of a four-lot subdivision goes beyond the right granted by the easement. The Trust also says no purpose would be served by granting the declaration.

[5]The issues that arise are:

(a)Does the benefit of the easement extend and attach to future subdivided lots, which requires consideration of:

1 Ruby & Rata Ltd v Reed Trustee 2018 Ltd [2023] NZHC 3462, (2023) 25 NZCPR 1.

(i)On its proper construction, does the easement only benefit Ruby’s…

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.

Continue reading Ruby & Rata Limited v Reed

Details

AGLC: Ruby & Rata Limited v Reed [2024] NZHC 3962
Case: [2024] NZHC 3962
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ruby & Rata Limited (Ruby) and the trustees of the Eagle Trust (Trust) own neighbouring blocks of land at Pukekohe. Ruby’s land enjoys a registered easement granting it rights of way over part of the Trust’s land. The parties have been in dispute over the easement. Ruby has obtained consent to subdivide its land into four lots. It has brought this claim seeking a declaration that lots resulting from the subdivision will be entitled to the benefits and subject to the obligations of the easement. The Trust opposes the application, arguing that the easement does not benefit lots resulting from the subdivision, and the additional burden imposed on the Trust’s land as a result of a four-lot subdivision goes beyond the right granted by the easement. The Trust also says no purpose would be served by granting the declaration. The issues that arise are: (a) whether the benefit of the easement extends and attaches to future subdivided lots, which requires consideration of: (i) whether on its proper construction, the easement only benefits Ruby’s land in its original form; and (ii) if the easement attaches to each subdivided lot, will that increase the burden on the Trust’s land to an extent that exceeds the terms of the grant; and (b) whether the making of a declaration would serve any purpose. The Court found that the benefit of the easement does extend and attach to future subdivided lots. However, the Court was unable to be satisfied that a four-lot subdivision of Ruby’s land will not result in an additional burden on the right of way that goes beyond anything which was contemplated at the time of the grant. The Court also found that the making of a declaration would serve no purpose. The Court dismissed Ruby’s application for summary judgment.

Orders