Disputes over access rights cannot be used for the collateral advantage of forcing approval to resource consent the High Court ruled in a dispute over access to install digital advertising on the side of an Auckland building.
Napier-based business Freedom Ventures Ltd owns a small 99 square metre site on Pitt Street in Auckland’s central business district. It earned income from a static billboard previously fixed to a wall on the southern boundary. The neighbouring property is owned by a trust controlled by Denise L’Estrange-Corbet. The High Court was told she refused access to install a digital billboard. She was told it would be only a two or three day job and that there was resource consent for the work. Ms L’Estrange-Corbet learnt from Auckland City there was no resource consent for a digital billboard and that an application was still under consideration. Legal action followed.
Freedom Ventures sued under the Property Law Act claiming access through Ms L’Estrange-Corbet’s land to the boundary wall was needed since the wall was landlocked land. Courts may order reasonable access.
Associate judge Sussock ruled it was too early to decide whether the wall was landlocked. It only became a legal issue if and when Freedom Ventures had resource consent to install a digital advertising sign and was then unable to agree access with its neighbour.
The court was told progress on resource consent was on hold; Freedom Ventures had yet to pay required fees. There is currently no billboard on the boundary wall. The earlier static billboard was removed in March 2020 after Freedom Ventures cancelled its contract with the media company then managing static billboards. Freedom Ventures has also learnt that its Pitt Street building is built over the boundary and encroaches on Ms L’Estrange-Corbet’s land.
Freedom Ventures Ltd v. L’Estrange-Corbet – High Court (18.02.22)
22.039