The building [3] COVID-19 [10] The Hoardings Incident [12] First alleged trespass — 4 July 2020 (the Door Knocking Incident) [19] Second alleged trespass — 22 July 2020 (the Letter Drop Incident) [21] SPAK commences proceedings [24]
The pleadings
Statement of claim [40] Statement of defence [46] Application for summary judgment [49] Application for strike out [50] SPAK’s contempt application [51]
The evidence [52]
The Hoardings Incident — 21 June 2020 [56] The Door Knocking Incident – 4 July 2020 [66] The Letter Drop Incident – 22 July 2020 [70]
Application to adduce further evidence on appeal [74]
Judgment under appeal
Summary judgment application [83]
The Hoardings Incident [84] The Door Knocking Incident [87] The Letter Drop Incident [89]
Conclusion on summary judgment [90] Strike out application [91]
Relevant law [102]
Trespass [103]
Trespass by a thing entering land [104] Is returning goods to their owner a defence? [105] Remedies [106]
Easements [111]
Misuse of easements [113] “Civiliter” principle [114] Variation of easements [119] Nuisance [122]
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The law [125]
Submissions [132]
Discussion
The Hoardings Incident [139] The Door Knocking Incident [144]
Admissibility of the cellphone video [146]
The Letter Drop Incident [152] Damages [159] Interim injunction application [161] Natural justice [162] Conclusion on summary judgment [163]
STRIKE OUT
The law [168]
Submissions [171]
Discussion
The strike out application [176] Frivolous and vexatious [178] Improper purpose [182]
Costs [188]
Indemnity or increased costs [189]
Result [195]
Introduction
In September 2020, SPAK (1996) Limited (SPAK), the operator of an Auckland hotel intended for use as a managed isolation facility in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, commenced proceedings in trespass against Reece LeRoy, the building manager of apartments located within the same building as the hotel. In October 2020, SPAK obtained an interim injunction against Mr LeRoy restricting his entry into the hotel. Almost a year later, by which time Mr LeRoy had ceased working as the building manager, the High Court gave summary judgment dismissing SPAK’s trespass claim, finding SPAK had no arguable case against Mr LeRoy and that it had an improper purpose in bringing the proceeding.[1]…
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 SPAK (1996) Ltd v LeRoy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
SPAK (1996) Ltd v LeRoy [2022] NZCA 564
Case
[2022] NZCA 564
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
SPAK (1996) Limited (SPAK) commenced proceedings in trespass against Reece LeRoy, the building manager of apartments located within the same building as the Hotel. SPAK obtained an interim injunction against Mr LeRoy restricting his entry into the hotel. Almost a year later, by which time Mr LeRoy had ceased working as the building manager, the High Court gave summary judgment dismissing SPAK’s trespass claim, finding SPAK had no arguable case against Mr LeRoy and that it had an improper purpose in bringing the proceeding. Indemnity costs were awarded. SPAK now appeals. The appeal concerns the High Court’s dismissal of SPAK’s claim for trespass against Mr LeRoy. SPAK’s claim was based on three alleged trespasses by Mr LeRoy, the building manager of the apartments. The Court of Appeal rejected SPAK’s appeal on summary judgment and strike out and held the appeal against the award of indemnity costs was allowed. The Court of Appeal found that SPAK’s trespass claims were trivial and petty and, to that extent, an abuse of process. The proceedings were frivolous and, by the time of the application for summary judgment and strike out, there was no proper purpose in continuing with them. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge that, had summary judgment not been granted, the claim should nevertheless have been struck out. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in respect of indemnity costs and remitted the matter back to the High Court for costs on the summary judgment and strike out to be considered afresh.