News and views

A recent High Court case shows that, in some circumstances, buyers of a property cannot rely totally on a code compliance certificate, but may have to undertake further investigations themselves. This will have implications for agents in circumstances where buyers ask them whether the purchase should be conditional on a builders report.

The High Court, in a recent case (Quin v the Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC), has discussed what obligations an agent has to explain defects to a potential purchaser. It has also clarified whether a Complaints Assessment Committee (“CAC”) can order an agent to pay damages if there is a breach of those obligations.

Having access to water makes a big difference to the value of farm land. Water permits can be essential to a farm or vineyard’s operations. Water permits can therefore be extremely valuable, and when buying a property it is important to make sure there is a valid water permit in place and that it can be transferred.

About two years ago, the Queenstown Lakes District Council started trying to track down the descendants of 17 sections in the Cardrona Valley which had been abandoned. This was triggered by an incident in 2008, when a couple of people tried to claim ownership of two sections opposite the Cardrona Hotel by fencing them off and putting signs on the fences claiming the land was private property.

Most developers in recent years have placed land covenants (also called restrictive covenants) on the titles to the lots in new subdivisions. These are intended to restrict what can be built on the property, and in some cases what the property can be used for. The recent High Court case of Whittiker v Jericevich looked at the extent of a restrictive covenant.

Of the hundreds of rural folk I’ve worked with over the years, many speak of guardianship, rather than ownership, of the land.

A recent High Court case looked at the question of whether buyers under a purchase agreement can sue for damages for a breach of warranty by the sellers when the buyers had not carried out a proper due diligence under a due diligence condition, and where proper due diligence would have exposed the error in the warranty.