Cases Flashcards
Wilson v New Brighton Panelbeaters
Facts:
- Wilson leaves car in his driveway in carport while at beach with family - —- “Walters” calls NBP and says it is his car and to move it
- They do
- Walters vanishes
- Wilson sues NBP and wins
Elements applied:
- The car was within Wilson’s possession
- The tow truck operatior acted intentionally
- This interference was unlawful as no consent had been given by Wilson
Penfolds Wines v Elliot
Facts:
- Penfolds sold wine in branded bottles; retained ownership of them
- Elliott (hotelier), obtains bottles, consensually, from his brother/customers
- Elliott fills bottles with house wine; supplies to “Branded Bottle Association of NSW”
- Penfolds sues, including in trespass
Held:
- Even though Penfolds owns the bottles, the customer was in possession and gave the willingly to Elliott
- Penfolds may have right of immediate possession, but Elliott never trespassed on actual possession
Matchitt
Facts:
- Tenant on Maori freehold land
- Tenant’s sister (for landowner), enters onto land; removes tenant’s belongings and fixtures; leaves outside (damaging them)
- Unauthorised
- Intentional - not knowingly wrong but actions intentional
- This land status does not make any material difference in this tort
Held
- Matchitts won as lease holders
- Entitled to at least nominal damages + compensatory damages inc. Consequential loss
Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA
Facts:
- Pipes under the ground
Issue:
- How far does possession extend?
Held:
- Roman brocard of possession extending to heaven and hell cannot be taken literally anymore but still applies to some extent
- Pipes were deep but not near point where so far down as to not have proprietary rights
- Bocardo held to own the subsurface to the relevant depths
- Bocardo was presumed in possession as owner and no evidence to the contrary was shown
Bernstein v Skyview
Facts:
- Drone case
Held:
- No trespass
- Flying the drone in no way affects the use of the land
- Balance between an owner of land and users of the sky
De Richaumont
Facts:
- Servicing building required going onto another’s land
- dispute meant they couldn’t get permission
- Applied for s 128 PLA order
- allows for repairing or erecting buildings
Held:
- Billboard not counted as something required under purpose
- A hardline approach to airspace intrusion
- “the law is that the rights of a property owner on, above and below his or her land are absolute. Cuinus est solum, est usque ad coelum et as inferos.”
Still applies to property principles.
Mulholland v Waimarie Industries Ltd
Facts:
- WI Ltd failed to pay rent
- Insolvent
Held:
- No remedies
- If breach solely failure to pay rent – presumptive right to relief on payment
- Geneally no relief if clear T is hopelessly insolvent. Not to be ‘foisted’ on L
Strong v Hurunui Hotel
Facts:
- breach of non-rent covenant (redecoration requirement)
- Several prior defaults, arbitration, orders against T including re: redecoration.
- strained relationship
Analysis:
- Breach was deliberate, important, persistent and overall serious
- BUT
- There would be a big loss to the tenant if no relief granted
- AND
- No evidence of lasting harm
- It could be remedied quickly
Held:
- Conditional relief granted
- Must do certain things within a certain time otherwise Landlord regains possession
Sibrad Company v Kanters and Edwards
Facts:
- Lease of farm
- Four different breaches
- T had become hostile
Held:
- Lots of breaches (serious)
- L should have right to cancel based on how bad they are
- T would not suffer major loss
- The breaches were likely to continue and be harmful to L
- No relief
Street v Mountford
Facts:
- L wanted to avoid cancellation and relief requirements
- Would apply in lease but not license
Held:
- What matters is the substance, not the form
- What the parties objectively agreed to is what matters, not what they subjectively call it or say they intended
- From an objective third party perspective, what is the agreement?
- lease = right to possession
- licence = mere permission to be on the land
Fatac Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CA):
Held:
- Lease confers right to posession for a certain term
- License is mere permission to be on land
- “…the fundamental distinction between a tenant and a licensee is that the former alone has the right to exclusive possession.”
Smallwood v Sheppards: [1895] 2 QB 627
Ratio:
- Discontinuous terms can also be certain
New Zealand Fish & Game Council v Attorney General
Facts:
- South Island High Country land.
- “Pastoral Leases”. Granted to farmers under Land Act 1948.
Issue:
- Did the Pastoral Leases grant exclusive possession?
Argued:
- Crown (L) and Farmers (Ts): Yes
- Fish and Game: No
Held:
- Lease confers exclusive possession
- No indication crown retains possession
- Whole point was to alienate the land from the crown
- The most intrusive rights exercisable only with tenant’s permission
- Extent of restrictions and obligations on Lessor
Clerk & Lindsell
Tenants can sue in trespass because they have possession.
Sealink Travel Group New Zealand Ltd v Waiheke Shipping Ltd
Facts:
- Rival ferry services
- Both companies licensed by Auckland Regional Transport Authority to use the Half Moon Bay Facility
- Dispute over facility use
- Sealink seeks an injunction to stop WSL acting in certain ways
- Claims trespass
Held:
- All there was is a mere license
- ARTA has ongoing rights to manage Facility and water space
- Sealink’s (limited) rights subject to ARTA’s ongoing, reserved rights.
- ARTA’s obligations to immediately prevent or compensate for facility use conflicting with Sealink’s rights
- More sense for license rather than lease
- ARTA has responsibility to fix this
- Does not matter payments made were called rent
