Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited) - SC 107/2015
Media releases
Summary
Result
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Hearing Transcripts
Related Documents
High Court decision — AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 84 [7 February 2014]
Court of Appeal decision — AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA111/2014 [2015] NZCA 390 [25 August 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted — MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2015] NZSC 177 [20 November 2015] (PDF 64 KB)
Substantive judgment — MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED) [2016] NZSC 89 [20 July 2016] (PDF 280 KB)