Scope of Court Orders for “Work Required to Be Done” in Easements & Covenants

Scope of Court Orders for “Work Required to Be Done” in Easements & Covenants
Tuesday 12 July, 2022
The High Court recently determined the scope of section 313(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 2007 (“PLA”), which allows the Court to make certain orders when there is a question or dispute about the existence or effect of easements or positive and restrictive covenants. The case involved a pipeline easement and considered Council’s responsibility to remove an asbestos pipeline from private land.
The (now) Far North District Council (“Far North DC”) had held a pipeline easement for waterworks and a right of way since 1983 over Māori freehold land administered by Ngakahu/Ngakohu Whānau Ahu Whenua Trust (“the Trust”). At the time the pipeline easement was granted an asbestos pipeline was already situated on the easement land and Far North DC was permitted to use that existing pipeline under the terms of the easement. In 1994, Far North DC installed a new PVC pipeline but did not remove the asbestos pipeline. In 2019, the Trust gave notice, pursuant to section 308 of the PLA, to Far North DC to remove the asbestos pipeline. The estimated cost of the removal was approximately $165,000 and Far North DC refused.
The Trust sought relief under section 313(1)(c) of the PLA for the Court to make an order that work was required to be done under the terms of the pipeline easement, specifically the removal of the asbestos pipeline by Far North DC. The Court considered the scope of the phrase “work required to be done under the terms of an easement” and determined that the words “under the terms of an easement” confirm that section 313(1)(c) of the PLA is aimed at enforcement of the terms of an easement rather than enforcement of other legal rights or obligations. In this particular case, the Court decided that the pipeline easement contained no express requirement to remove pipes that had been replaced and because there was no reason to imply such a term the Court did not make an order under section 313 requiring Far North DC to remove the asbestos pipeline. The Court did note in its decision that Far North DC remained responsible for maintaining the asbestos pipeline.
The case also considered whether it could order the removal of a driveway constructed by Far North DC on the easement land and similarly determined that section 313 (1)(c) of the PLA could only be used to enforce the terms of the pipeline easement which did not require Far North DC to remove the driveway.
Although Far North DC was not required to undertake any further work in the particular circumstances of this case, it is a good reminder to local authorities to carefully consider the terms of easements it enters into over private land.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Author
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Making a counteroffer: what to know before you sign on the dotted line
Thursday 22 April, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
