Property Law Pot Pourri 2015

2. ADLSI
SEMINAR
Property Law Pot Pourri
2015
September 2015

3. Presented by
Thomas GibbonsDenise Marsden
Partner
David Chapman
Senior Advisor
Joanna Pidgeon
Principal
Director

4. ADLSI
SEMINAR
Property Law Pot Pourri 2015
Sale and Purchase of
Managed Units
Denise Marsden
Partner

5. 5
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Structures
3. Usual terms of hotel/serviced apartment leases
4. Usual terms of building management agreements
5. Usual terms of property management agreements
6. Due diligence for purchasers
7. Acting for vendors
8. Questions

6. 6
1. Introduction
 Managed units have another layer of complexity when
brought and sold
 These issues we discuss today are all in addition to usual
advice to vendor/purchaser

7. 7
2. Management Structures
 (a) Serviced Apartment Leases
Body Corporate
Unit Owner
Manager
Body Corporate
Manager
Guests
(Short term visitors)
Contract
Lease

8. 8
2. Management Structures(cont’d)
 (b) Hotel Management Body Corporate
Unit Owner
Manager
Hotel Operator
Guests
Contract (Body
corporate
administration)
Lease
Management
Agreement

9. 9
2. Management Structures (cont’d)
 (c) Management Rights - Residential
Body Corporate
Manager
Unit Owner
Building
Manager
An Owner Body Corporate
Lease of
Manager
s Unit
Building
Management
Agreement
Contract
Guarantee
of lease
Tenant
Residential
Tenancy
Agreement
Property Management
Agreement

10. 10
2. Management Structures (cont’d)
 (d) Management Rights – Residential Leases
Body Corporate
Unit Owner
Manager
Body Corporate
Manager
Tenant
Contract
Lease
Residential tenancy agreement

11. 11
3.Usual Terms of Hotel/Serviced Apartment
Leases
 Rent paid is less outgoings and management fees.
 Rent might be pooled or for the unit.
 Manager’s pay the outgoings.
 FFE ownership can vary and there are usually sinking funds
spent by the manager.
 Assignment might not need consent.
 Termination might be at will or limited.

12. 12
3. Usual terms of hotel/serviced apartment
leases
 Proxies/powers of attorneys to managers
 Proxies/powers of attorneys to managers
 Obligations on sale
– notice
– delivery of covenants
 GST
 Rights to occupy

13. 13
4. Usual Terms of Building Management
Agreements
 Request via additional disclosure
 Caretaking/building management services
 Fixed fee
 On-site manager’s accommodation
 Exclusive letting rights
 Assignment with consent
 Termination rights

14. 14
5. Usual Terms of Property Management
Agreements
 % fee and commissions
 Outgoings paid by owners
 Termination at will

15. 15
6. Due Diligence for Purchasers
 Not just a property purchaser, it’s also a business
 Agreements should include provisions as if subject to a
commercial lease
 Disclosure (Unit Titles) will not be enough to advise
purchasers

16. 16
6. Due diligence for Purchasers (cont’d)
 Management structure
 Contracts with the unit owner
 Other associated contracts with other parties
 Deed of assignment
 Income from unit (and deductions from it)
 Payment of outgoings
 Manager competency, profitability
 GST

17. 17
6. Due Diligence for Purchasers (cont’d)
 FFE/Chattels
 FFE fund
 Termination rights
 Voting rights
 Numbers in the pool
 Impact on the body corporate
 Resource consent – change of use considerations

18. 18
7. Advising Vendors
 Selling the property subject to correct contracts
 Obligations to advise managers of sales
 Deeds of covenant
 Chattels
 Clause 6.1 warranties
 Obtaining and reviewing financial information
 Apportionments
 Clause 8.2(8) warranties - common property rights

19. 19
Questions & Answers

20. Afternoon Tea

21. ADLSI
SEMINAR
Property Law Pot Pourri 2015
Easement and Covenants –
Taken for Granted?
Thomas Gibbons
Director

22. 22
A Cautionary Tale
 https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue-
853/lawyers-compaints-service-fined-for-failure-to-advise-
adequately
 Two covenants had an impact on the land, together with a
Resource Consent.
 The standards committee observed that the covenant
documents were “relatively standard documents for legal
practitioners to review”.
 E provided copies of the documents to the purchaser, advising
him that the purchaser needed to carefully read the detail.

23. 23
A Cautionary Tale (cont’d)
 The committee said that E did not provide the required legal
analysis and, in the circumstances, he should have because
the client was clearly relying upon him to do so.
 It was not sufficient for E to have advised the purchaser to
read the documentation carefully, without explaining it fully,
and advising on the implications.

24. 24
Outline
 Easements
– What and characteristics
– Types and uses
– Creation and modification
 Covenants
– Nature and operation
– Creation
– Drafting and interpretation
 Current issues and cases

25. 25
Four Themes
 Broad flexibility of NZ law
 Law vs practice
 Read and understand
 Draft carefully, with an eye to the future

26. 26
Easements
 A right, over someone else’s land, that is not a lease or
licence
 Traditionally, four characteristics:
– Dominant and servient tenement
– Easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
– Dominant and servient owners must be different persons
– Subject of grant suitable, and right sufficiently defined
 See eg Re Ellenborough Park

27. 27
Easements (cont’d)
 Today:
– Dominant and servient tenement
 Not for easement in gross
– Easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
 Not for easement in gross
– Dominant and servient owners must be different persons
 Not required – see s 90E LTA
– Subject of grant suitable, and right sufficiently defined
 Broad scope for creation

28. 28
Easements (cont’d)
Philpott v Noble Investments Ltd [2015] NZCA 342 at [31]
“An easement has the characteristic that it affects the servient land for the
benefit of the dominant land, in a way that benefits the dominant land, not just
the owner of that land for the time being. The servient and dominant land need
not be contiguous but they need to be sufficiently close that the dominant land
receives a benefit from the grant of the easement. The grantor (servient
owner) and the grantee (dominant owner) must be different persons. The right
must also be capable of being the subject matter of a grant, so that most
easements are either the same as or close to existing grants. Another aspect
of this requirement is that there must be clarity as to the nature of the right
granted by the easement, so that it is possible to determine both whether the
right exists, and whether it has been breached. The claimed easement cannot
be vague, ill-defined or over-broad.”

29. 29
Easements (cont’d)
 Ways to categorise:
- Appurtenant or in gross
- Positive or negative
- Registered or unregistered
- By usage rights:
 LT Regs 2002
• ROW, convey water, drain water, drain sewage, etc
 Other, eg party wall, waterway, batter right, canal …

30. 30
Easements (cont’d)
 Creation – in
practice:
– Parties agree by
contract
– Resource consent or
survey plan turns up

31. 31
Easements (cont’d)
 Creation – in law:
– Transfer
– Easement instrument
– On deposit of plan (not yet enabled)
 Variation, modification, surrender
– By easement instrument
– By Court order
– Removal from register by RGL, in event of redundancy

32. 32
Easements (cont’d)
 Particular statutory provisions
– Sec 348 Local Government Act 1974
 Creation of ROW
– Sec 73 Unit Titles Act 2010
 Incidental rights
– Sec 23 Electricity Act 1993
 Rights of access to electrical works
– Sec 181 Local Government Act 2002
 Construct and maintain works on private land

33. 33
Easements (cont’d)
 Particular statutory provisions
– Sec 328 Property Law Act 2007
 Court-ordered access to landlocked land
– Sec 325 Property Law Act 2007
 Court-ordered easement for wrongly-placed structure
– Sec 298 Property Law Act 2007
 Rights over jointly owned access lot
– Sec 243 Resource Management Act 1991
 Compulsory easements …

34. 34
Easements (cont’d)
 Utility easements
– Easements in gross
– Implied LT Regs vs standard terms (vs
standard negotiations)
– Fairness and the role of lawyers
– Role of peer review

35. 35
Easements (cont’d)
 Interpretation
– Treat like a contract vs treat like a public document
– Balance of authority and commentary favours treating like a
contract
 Investors Compensation approach

36. 36
Covenants
 Equitable origins of restrictive covenants over land – Tulk v
Moxhay (1852)
 Intersection of contract, equity, and statute
– Notified on register, not registered
– Notification gives “no greater effect”
– Effect as a deed inter partes

37. 37
Covenants (cont’d)
 Equitable origins of restrictive covenants over land – Tulk v
Moxhay (1852)
 Intersection of contract, equity, and statute
– Notified on register, not registered
– Notification gives “no greater effect”
– Effect as a deed inter partes

38. 38
Covenants (cont’d)
 Types
– PLA covenants, notified on register
– Sec 108, RMA
– Sec 221, RMA (consent notices)
– Sec 240, RMA
– Heritage covenants
– Conservation covenants
– Open space covenants

39. 39
Covenants (cont’d)
 Gridlock
– Do we need the covenants we have?
– Covenants c. 1995 vs covenant c. 2015
 Paternalism?
 Inhibiting affordability?
 Inhibiting further development?
• (s 224 RMA)
– Who pushes for covenants?
 Developers? Agents? Lawyers?

40. 40
Covenants (cont’d)
 Interpretation and drafting
 When drafting – think ahead
– Better recitals
– Sunset provision
– Expiry over future roads to vest
– Are restrictions needed?
– Are provisions clear (when things change)?
– Liquidated damages
– Approval rights to developer

41. 41
Encumbrances
 Used for positive covenants and covenants in gross
– Suggested since 1950s, confirmed as properly valid and
enforceable only in last 10 years
– Powerful – and dangerous
 Proposals for reform
– Covenants in gross to be notifiable on titles
– Broad PLA modification powers for encumbrances?

42. 42
Case Law
 Gregory v EK Trust (NZHC)
– ROW dispute
– Gates removed over half of shared driveway
– Gates may have been desirable for the property, but in terms of
ROW, not necessary for the easement
– Interim injunction declined
– Comments on neighbourliness

43. 43
Case Law (cont’d)
 Gregory v EK Trust (NZHC)
 Practical point: a gate isn’t a necessary part of a ROW
easement
– Fact it arose 20 years after grant may also be relevant

44. 44
Case Law (cont’d)
 Philpott v Noble (NZCA)
– A caveat case: agreement to provide roading and services if
subdivision proceeded
– “no express provision in the contract that an easement would be
granted, but no particular form of words is necessary for an
implied grant of an easement” (at [40])
 More than personal rights intended
 Intention to confer right that was capable of being subject of
grant of easement

45. 45
Case Law (cont’d)
 Philpott v Noble (NZCA)
 Practical point: if you intend to create an easement (rather
than some other right), or do not, say so
– The courts may imply an easement into wording

46. 46
Case Law (cont’d)
 Joie de Vivre v Christchurch Intl Airport (NZHC)
– agreement to grant easements recorded in a “registered land
covenant”
– Court uncertain whether conditional agreement to grant
easement allows caveat
– Right to registerable interest (easement) arose from registered
instrument (land covenant)
 No greater rights could accrue, so no caveat

47. 47
Case Law (cont’d)
 Joie de Vivre v Christchurch Intl Airport (NZHC)
 Practical point: no caveatable interest from easement
agreement contained in land covenant
– Was the Court correct that no greater rights could accrue?

48. 48
Case Law (cont’d)
 Singh v Potters Park (NZCA)
– ROW agreement conditional on each of Singh and Potters
obtaining consents from Council by April 2012.
– Potters obtained its consent, but the Trust delayed its application
and did not obtain all consents.
– Potters cancelled agreement for non satisfaction of conditions.
And refused to grant ROW.
– Singh sued, HC found for Potters.
– CA dismissed appeal after analysis of contract.

49. 49
Case Law (cont’d)
 Singh v Potters Park (NZCA)
 Practical point: An agreement to grant an easement is still a
contract, and conditions (etc) still form part of the contract

50. 50
Case Law (cont’d)
 Re Horncastle Homes (NZHC)
– Application under PLA to extinguish old easements – granted
– Practical point: Reminder that application supposed to be served
on territorial authority
 Excused here

51. 51
Case Law (cont’d)
 Schmuck v Director-General of DOC (NZHC)
– Scope of s 48(1)(f) of Reserves Act 1977
– Powers of Minister
– Power of Minister to grant easement could include permanent
facilities
 Practical point: Though easements do not allow for
exclusive possession, they can allow for permanent facilities

52. 52
Case Law (cont’d)
 Menzies v Goodley (NZHC)
– Interpretation of height restriction covenant
– Extrinsic evidence all lost/unavailable
 No evidence covenant did not reflect common intention
 No rectification
– Reliance on wording of memorandum of transfer over deposited
plan

53. 53
Case Law (cont’d)
 Menzies v Goodley (NZHC)
 Practical point: Be clear in drafting, so you can follow the
register, and don’t need to rely on extrinsic evidence later

54. 54
Case Law (cont’d)
 Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland (NZCA)
– 10 unit owners in apartment block
 Claimed right to use car park on adjacent block
 Car park owners denied apartment owners use rights
– HC found covenant did not permit unit owners’ use
– Appealed to CA

55. 55
Case Law (cont’d)
 Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland (NZCA)
– CA considered interpretation issues:
 “… there are divergent views on the extent to which extrinsic
evidence should be taken into account in interpreting
instruments registered against a title. The issue is one that a
permanent court may wish to consider when a suitable
opportunity arises …” [21]
– Interpret covenant based on factual context at time of creation
– Positive covenant, despite negative wording

56. 56
Case Law (cont’d)
 Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland (NZCA)
– Is the Court right?
– Was this really a positive covenant?
– Are NZ courts being too flexible?

57. 57
Summing Up
 Themes from cases
 Many relate to agreements, not registered instruments.
– Be clear and precise in contractual drafting
– Turn easement agreements into registered easements as
promptly as possible
 Almost all issues relate to interpretation problems.
– Be clear and precise in contractual drafting
– Look ahead

58. 58
Four Themes
 Broad flexibility of NZ law
 Law vs practice
 Read and understand
 Draft carefully, with an eye to the future

59. 59
Questions & Answers

60. E-dealing Best Practice,
Landonline Tips and
Practical Registration
Matters
David Chapman
Senior Advisor

61. 61
Session Overview
 Knowledge base , some useful tips
– A & I Forms
– checklist for subdivisions
– answer questions that have been submitted
 Consent notice, superfluous material
 Taxation (Land Information and Offshore persons) Bill

62. 62
LINZ Knowledge Base
www.linz.govt.nz
 Information for lawyers
– Common dealings
 Subdivisions – file attachments – subdivision checklist
 Land registration
– Rules standards and guidelines – e-dealing checklists,
guidelines , compliance and evidence retention
 Checklists, evidentiary requirements, consent requirements self
assessment form, common compliance review issues

63. Knowledge Base Homepage

64. Pre-set Instrument Lists in Landonline

65. Example Dealings in Landonline

66. Example Dealings in Landonline (cont’d)

67. 67
Superfluous Documents
Information, accurate and easy to understand
 Councils able to give notice of conditions on LT register
– Covenants, bonds, consent notices
 Need to be clear concise easy to understand
 Lodgements with additional information outside the scope or
vision of LT Act
– Superfluous
– Often poor image quality, diagrams
– Multiple pages
– Handwritten notes unreadable when scanned

68. 68
Concerns
 Slows or freezes Landonline processing, for everyone
 Information is not authorised by either the RMA or LTA
 Information is not part of the LT register
 Practitioners may be caught up with their obligation to
search the register
 Information once lodged is not updated
 LINZ is not the authoritative source for Council information

69. 69
How You Can Help
 LINZ talking to Councils
 Some practitioners have been asked to lodge these types of
documents
 Lodge only information that is authorised by the RMA and
relevant to the transaction being registered

70. 70
Taxation and Offshore Persons
Focus on gathering information for tax compliance from people
dealing in land
 Purchasers and vendors need to provide tax numbers
– NZ IRD number
– Overseas: an overseas Tax Identification Number (TIN)
 Acting another capacity (trust) the number relating to that
capacity

71. 71
Tax Reforms Exemptions
 New Zealand individual who is not an offshore person
– buying or selling their main home
 Maori Land
 Land that is part of treaty settlement process
 Any contract entered into before 1 October if registered on
or before 1 April 2016

72. 72
Collection of Information
 Collected by conveyancers from vendors and purchasers
 Provided to LINZ upon lodgement of dealings
 LINZ collects the information and sends it on to IRD
 Principally a tax measure but LTA provides the mechanism
for collecting information
 Tax information is personal information
– not part of LT register
– not publically available

73. 73
Registration of Transfers
 Property lawyers have a key role in submitting tax information
via Landonline
 Applies to any specified estate in land
– all freehold and leasehold estates
– stratum estates under Unit Titles Act
– licences to occupy
 Transfers registered only if accompanied by tax information
provided by transferor and transferee
 Lawyers who certify the transfer must provide the information
but do not have to certify to its accuracy

74. 74
Responsibilities
 Conveyancers are required to supply information to LINZ
with dealing
 Conveyancers are not required to certify the accuracy of the
information supplied
 Onus on purchasers and vendors to provide correct
information
 It is an offence for the transferor or transferee to provide
false information

75. 75
Policing Errors and Omissions
 An omission or error in any tax information provided does not:
– affect the validity of any registration or
– give rise to any liability of or claim for compensation from the RGL,
LINZ or the Crown
 If information is incorrect the transferor or transferee must complete
a corrected tax statement
 Information will be held by LINZ for 10 years and a copy forwarded
to IRD

76. 76
Information Not Available for Searching
 The information being gathered is private information
 Does not form part of the LT register and must not be made
available to the public
 Will not be available for searching
 Example of Land Transfer Tax Statement on LINZ website

77. Landonlin
e:Accessi
ng New
Tax
Screen
A new button will
display for transfers
that require tax
information

78. Landonlin
e:
Transfers
Tax information
may then be
entered according
to the details
provided in your
client’s tax
statement
When you click on the field in columns
Q1.1, Q2.1 & Q2.2, the question will
display above
When all details
have been
entered, the
system will check
this box

79. Landonline – Image Only Transfers
For image only transfers the “Insert names”
button will display for entry of the names
before details can be entered in the tax
screen

80. 80
Landonline – Image Only Transfers
Enter the names of each
transferor or transferee
For mortgagee sales, the
transferor will be the
bank
For transfers also
granting an easement,
indicate the names
involved in the transfer of
land by ticking the box

81. 81
Landonline – Certify and Sign
At signing, a check will
be completed to ensure
tax details have been
completed.
After completing
certifications and
clicking sign, the tax
details for your firms
clients will display for
confirmation

82. 82
Getting Prepared
 Begins 1st October 2015
 Affects contracts entered into on or after 1 October
 Especially look out for
– trusts that may not already have an IRD number
– non-resident clients who do not already have an IRD number

83. 83
Transition
 Changes to Landonline over 26 – 27 Sept
 Landonline functionality will begin on 28 Sept
 If settlement date is before 1st October ensure settlement
date is entered in “create dealing “ screen
 Settlement not before 1st October avoid rework by not
signing the transfer prior to 28th Sept

84. 84
Questions & Answers