Print this page

Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others - SC 108/2015

Media releases

Summary

Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393   CA 185/2014

Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B  The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C  We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016

Hearing Transcripts

Related Documents

High Court decision — BODY CORPORATE 341188 v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLANDC [2014] NZHC 442 [12 March 2014]

Court of Appeal decision — BODY CORPORATE 341188 v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZCA 393 [26 August 2015]

Leave judgment - leave granted — ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2015] NZSC 188 [10 December 2015] (PDF 116 KB)

Substantive judgment — ESCROW HOLDINGS FORTY-ONE LIMITED v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZSC 167 [20 December 2016] (PDF 238 KB)