Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11832] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 So far as I am aware no changes were recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. No I am wrong; there was one which related to clause 333—so I will come to that in due course. But I simply say that Part 6 outlines some special powers of the court in various situations and brings into this legislation some provisions that I think were included in a number of amendments to the Property Law Act 1952. Some of the circumstances in which the court is required to exercise these special powers are interesting indeed. For example Subpart 1 deals with entry on to neighbouring land and Subpart 2 deals with wrongly placed structures—a situation that can occur from time to time. 
Subpart 3 is very interesting and the problem of landlocked land sometimes does arise. When I was in practice I can recall being involved in a number of cases where someone wanted to get access to some land that was landlocked and needed to apply to the court to enable an order to be made so that the neighbour would be required to grant reasonable access to landlocked land. I am not saying that the issue is an everyday occurrence in the courts but it is one that does arise from time to time and we need to have clear rules to enable justice to be done in the particular circumstances. 
Subpart 4 is one of those areas that causes a great deal of upset between neighbours. The number of times neighbours fall out over trees and unauthorised improvements on neighbouring land is surprising. Indeed the court may make orders for trimming trees or for removing and altering structures if the trees or structures are causing a nuisance or some kind of injurious affection to a neighbour. I have had a number of those cases in my time and I can assure the Committee that nothing creates greater tension between neighbours than a tree that has grown too large. Indeed I can recall a case in Lower Hutt where there seemed to be a problem with a tree and when one of the applications was going to the court it was suddenly found that the tree had been poisoned and was dying. That was one way of dealing with the issue but it was certainly not in accordance with the Property Law Act or indeed in accordance with the criminal law. 
So Subpart 4 sets out some provisions to deal with this issue which as I have said can cause so much trouble between neighbours and it is in that context that the select committee recommended a minor change. We recommended that clause 333 be amended so that a party subject to one of these orders can apply to the District Court for a variation of the order if circumstances have changed in such a way that it will result in a different order being made by the court. It is a fairly minor amendment but it enables the courts to have flexibility to grant orders that are appropriate to particular circumstances. 
So Part 6 is about the special powers of the court in particular circumstances and it provides a reasonably straightforward way in which the court can deal with the kinds of issues I have outlined. Other than that I have nothing further to say on Part 6 because only one change needed to be addressed—the one I have just mentioned—and in all other respects the Justice and Electoral Committee was satisfied that Part 6 was well drafted and workable. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.