Legal Research
Cases
Teece v Veint

Teece v Veint

Case [2021] NZHC 409 9 March 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2020-425-000073

[2021] NZHC 409

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of an application that a caveat not lapse

BETWEEN

DAVID JOHN TEECE
First Applicant

AND

HERITAGE PTC, LLC

Second Applicant

AND

LLOYD JAMES VEINT

Respondent

Hearing: 19 February 2021

Appearances:

S J Mills QC and J Moss for Applicants

P F Whiteside QC and D M Jackson for Respondent

Judgment:

9 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 March 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

TEECE v VEINT [2021] NZHC 409 [9 March 2021]

The application

[1] This case concerns an application to sustain a caveat lodged to protect a contractual equitable easement. There has been a prior related decision concerning whether this application was made in time; an issue decided in favour of the applicants.1

[2] An equitable easement is an interest in land capable of supporting a caveat.2 The respondent, Mr Veint, argues the applicants have no caveatable interest in his land because conditions requiring and justifying the grant of an easement in this case have not been satisfied. However, his primary submission is the caveat should lapse in any event in the exercise of the Court’s discretion because the applicants have no reasonable expectation of obtaining any benefit from the continuance of the caveat.

The facts

[3] In 1997, Dr Teece, the first applicant, purchased land near Glenorchy known as the Paradise Block from Mr Veint. The Paradise Block was part of a larger property known as Arcadia Station which is still retained by Mr Veint.

[4] Dr Teece lives in the United States but is a New Zealander. He has property interests here and planned to develop the Paradise Block as an eco-tourist lodge. No such development has occurred.

[5] The Paradise Block has now been transferred to the second applicant (Heritage). Heritage is a corporate trustee of a trust associated with Dr Teece. The parties proceeded on the basis that Dr Teece and Heritage have identical interests and obligations. Therefore, throughout this judgment I will simply refer to Dr Teece.

[6] Mr Veint and Dr Teece entered into a heads of agreement for the sale and purchase of the Paradise Block dated 25 August 1997. Settlement was to be on 31 October 1997 (or earlier by mutual agreement) and Dr Teece obtained a right of

1 Teece v Veint [2020] NZHC 3501.
2 Pure Crystal Holdings Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council [2017] NZHC 1885 at [21]; see also
North v Longford Holdings Ltd HC Wellington M 307/97, 17 September 1997.

access to use and, if necessary, extend an airstrip on Arcadia Station in the event that, after taking advice and researching the viability of an airstrip on blocks 1 and 2 of the Paradise Block, he concluded this was not feasible. It should be noted, blocks…

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 Teece v Veint

Details

AGLC: Teece v Veint [2021] NZHC 409
Case: [2021] NZHC 409
Decision Date: 9 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Teece v Veint, the applicants sought to sustain a caveat over three titles of land in Arcadia Station to protect a contractual equitable easement. The applicant, Dr Teece, had purchased the Paradise Block in 1997 and a heads of agreement provided for a right of access to use and, if necessary, extend an airstrip on Arcadia Station if it was not feasible to establish one on blocks 1 and 2 of the Paradise Block. Dr Teece commenced a proceeding seeking specific performance of the easement in 2003 and lodged a caveat over the Arcadia Station land in 2003. The caveat lapsed and Dr Teece filed this proceeding to sustain it. The respondent, Mr Veint, argued the caveat should be removed because the conditions for the easement had not been satisfied and, in any event, Dr Teece had no reasonable expectation of obtaining any benefit from the continuance of the caveat. The Court held Dr Teece had a reasonably arguable case for the interest claimed and, further, that the legitimate interests of Dr Teece would not be prejudiced by the removal of the caveat. The Court held the caveat should be sustained and imposed conditions for the pursuit of the proceeding and a suitable undertaking to pay damages in the event the interest claimed by the caveat was not ultimately sustained.

Orders