Graham Fisher’s continuing control over further subdivision of a Masterton lifestyle subdivision three decades after selling the last lot appears faintly feudal, with the High Court ruling it was not going to rewrite terms of restrictive covenants registered on titles to each lot.
Milford Downs rural subdivision of 23 separate lots was established by Mr Fisher in the 1990s. Lot sizes were limited by its rural zoning.
In 2014, Bruce and Vicki Mathews purchased what is number nine Milford Downs.
Subsequent relaxation of District Plan rules governing rural lot sizes enabled them to subdivide their ten hectare lot into two five hectare properties; part of their plan to free up capital for retirement, they told the High Court.
Neighbours objected.
Consent was required from all other owners of lots in the subdivision, neighbours claimed.
Wording of restrictive covenants registered on title to each lot requires consent for any subdivision from ‘the registered proprieter.’
Justice La Hood ruled this required consent only from the original registered proprieter, Mr Fisher; not all current owners of properties in the subdivision.
The court was told Mr Fisher did consent to the Mathews planned subdivision. He was paid a consent fee of $3000, plus $1800 towards his legal costs.
The plain meaning of the restrictive covenant is that Mr Fisher has full control over further subdivision, Justice La Hood said.
It is not unusual for developers to impose restrictive covenants on new subdivisions to preserve the development’s character as part of a building scheme, he said.
Justice La Hood indicated Mr Fisher’s control over further subdivision expires on his death.
Control does not pass to his estate.
Further subdivision is then governed solely by planning and resource management rules.
Slight v. Mathews – High Court (23.02.26)
26.083