+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Property Law

Property briefs

Cross Leases, Easements, Neighbour Disputes, Property Disputes, Property Law, Residential Property
0

There are a plethora of court cases involving property disputes. We highlight two cases – an easement issue and a cross-lease dispute that may resonate with property owners.

 

Right of way easement

The Wimax[1] case involved a dispute arising between neighbours over a right of way (driveway) easement.

Wimax and Fuge were neighbours along a right of way. Wimax owned the land on which there was the driveway; Fuge benefitted from the free and unimpeded right to use it to access their property.

Wimax had built structures on its property encroaching on the right of way area, including retaining walls and concrete parking walls. The structures replaced earlier structures, improved the driveway’s appearance and did not encroach further than previous structures. They were, however, larger and more permanent than before.

Fuge discovered the structures encroached on the driveway and demanded their removal. Wimax refused, arguing that the structures did not impede Fuge’s access and would be an unnecessary cost to remove.

Fuge initiated arbitration seeking an order[2] to enable the court to enforce the terms of the easement. The arbitrator found that the structures did not substantially interfere with the right of way.

Fuge appealed this decision to the High Court; this overturned the arbitrator’s decision finding that the structures amounted to a wrongful interference.

Wimax then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that Fuge needed to show that there was a ‘substantial’ interference with their ‘reasonable’ use of the right of way. Fuge could not.

Despite the structures, Fuge could still use the driveway to access the property, just as the previous owners had done for over 60 years. Further, Fuge had no plans to develop their property on which the structures would impact. On balance, Fuge had rights over an adequate and effective driveway which did not need to be widened and was still useable despite the structures.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and Wimax was entitled to retain the structures.

Fuge, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard on 17 February 2026, although the judgment has not yet been delivered. It will be interesting to read it once it is released.

If you are a party to a right of way and have any questions regarding your rights and obligations under the terms of the easement, please contact us for advice.

 

Cross lease dispute

This involved a long-running dispute[3] involving the Goldsburys who withheld consent to their neighbours, the Turners, replacing an existing dwelling on their property which was subject to the terms of a cross-lease.

Most cross-leases provide that alterations cannot be made (or new structures erected) without the prior consent of the other parties. This consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

The Turners owned the property at the front of a four-way cross-lease. The Goldsburys owned two properties to the rear. The Turner’s property was derelict, and they sought the Goldsburys’ consent to demolish and erect a modern building in its place. There were also issues with recurring flooding and so they wanted to ‘lift’ the property.

The Goldsburys refused to consent to the works, arguing (amongst other things) that their sea views would be impacted. The Goldsburys were only agreeable to a rebuild within the same footprint as long as there was no greater intrusion into the commonly owned airspace.

The Turners referred the dispute to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled that the Goldsburys’ withholding of consent was not unreasonable, and that it was not unreasonable to withhold consent for demolition where the dwelling was not uninhabitable and the proposal was to extend the existing footprint.

The Turners responded by applying to the High Court for a partition order,[4] separating the Turners’ property from those of the Goldsburys under the cross-lease. Section 339 requires consideration of factors in section 342, including any hardship that would be caused by not making an order in comparison with the hardship that would be caused to any other person if an order was made. The High Court declined to make an order; the Turners then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In a somewhat surprising move, the Court of Appeal placed greater emphasis on the relationship breakdown between the parties, the previous ‘intransigence’ and stubbornness of the Goldsburys about the development plans and the overall hardship to the Turners. Due to these facts and that the parties had reached an impasse, the court found it was necessary to grant a partition order subject to conditions to be determined by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal usefully confirmed that the test as to whether consent was unreasonably withheld under a cross-lease was to consider whether a reasonable lessor would withhold consent in the particular circumstances, and whether the lessor reasonably believed the proposed use would injure its interests.

If you are a party to a cross-lease and find yourself in a situation where you want to redevelop or are at odds with your neighbour, please be in touch and we can advise you on your options.

[1] Wimax New Zealand Ltd v Fuge [2025] NZCA 31.

[2] Section 313 of the Property Law Act 2007.

[3] Turner v Goldsbury [2024] NZCA 292.

[4] Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Revised Law Association Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate

Buying Property, Property Law, Real Estate Law, Residential Property, Sale and Purchase Agreements, Settlements
0

Signatories should become familiar with changes

The majority of property sale and purchase agreements are recorded on The Law Association of New Zealand’s (TLANZ) Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate. TLANZ recently released the fourth revision of the Eleventh Edition of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase (ASP); most conveyancing transactions are now being completed using this revision.

There are a number of changes in the new revision of the ASP, so it is important that anyone signing the ASP is familiar with these changes and the implications of signing this document. We discuss some of the changes below, although this is not a full list of the amendments.

 

New warranties

Both buyers and sellers must now provide a warranty that they (or their real estate agent) have not altered, removed or added any wording to the standard ASP, unless any alterations are easily identifiable (for example, a clause has been crossed out using a strikethrough, or an addition is easily identifiable). The use of PDF editing software has meant that it is possible to change the wording in the ASP without making it clear that these changes have been made.

The new warranty provides both parties with reassurance that they can safely assume that all of the standard terms apply, unless it is abundantly clear that they have been modified. If you are the seller, it is important that your real estate agent also understands this warranty. If the agent has made any alterations to the agreement without these changes being easily identifiable, you have breached this warranty; this could have financial consequences for you.

Another additional warranty that the seller now provides is the situation where they have completed any ’restricted building work’ (as defined in the Building Act 2004, and typically involving work that is required to be carried out by particular qualified professionals such as a licensed building practitioner, chartered professional engineer or registered plumber/gasfitter or electrician) on the property on or after 13 March 2012, that this work was carried out or supervised by a suitably qualified person.

The effect of this new warranty is that the seller is warranting that they have actually complied with the exemption requirements, and may be liable for any loss the buyer suffers if it turns out that they did not.

Examples of restricted building work that may be exempt from building consent requirements include a carport between 20 and 40m2 in floor area, which needs to be carried out or supervised by a licensed building practitioner or a chartered professional engineer, or replacing sanitary plumbing fixtures (such as a toilet), which must be carried out by a registered plumber. This warranty will also apply to any building work completed using the new granny flat exemption.

 

Changes to conditions

The requirements regarding cancelling due to non-fulfilment of the finance condition have changed. Now, instead of having to provide a ‘satisfactory explanation of the grounds relied upon by the Purchaser,’ the buyer must provide a ‘reasonable explanation of the steps taken by the Purchaser to arrange finance.’ This change means that, while the buyer still has an obligation to take reasonable steps to obtain finance, the buyer does not end up in a dispute with a seller over whether the grounds relied upon by them are ‘satisfactory.’

If a buyer needs Overseas Investment Office (OIO) consent, the seller must now take reasonable steps to enable this condition to be fulfilled by the buyer. Previously, the seller was not required to do anything to enable the condition to be fulfilled. While OIO consent is primarily the buyer’s responsibility, this new clause acknowledges that the seller may need to take steps as well to enable the buyer to satisfy the condition.

 

Claims for compensation

The claims for the compensation process have changed slightly. Now, the claimant (typically the buyer, but not always) must raise a claim for compensation as early as reasonably practicable, but no later than the working day prior to settlement, and they now may raise multiple claims for compensation.

The previous revisions only required a claimant to raise a claim no later than the working day prior to settlement, and limited a claimant to raising only one claim for compensation. Removing the number of claims the claimant may make is necessary to enable them to make a claim as soon as reasonably practicable.

 

Chattels

The chattels list has been altered slightly. Previously, the agreement listed blinds, curtains and drapes separately as chattels. Now, there is just a catch-all ‘window coverings.’ ‘Automatic garage door facility’ has also been added as a chattel; this clarifies that a garage remote is a separate chattel to the actual door, and further clarifies that the door itself (if there is a garage door) should also be in reasonable working order on settlement.

 

What does this mean for me?

Any time you sign a legally binding document, you should ensure that you fully understand your rights and obligations under that agreement. We strongly recommend that you talk with us before signing an ASP, whether you are signing as a buyer or as a seller.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Structuring your development and considerations for buyers in new subdivisions

Land Covenants, Property Development, Property Law, Residential Property, Subdivisions, Unit Titles
0

The relationships between neighbours in a subdivision and the rules, regulations and the way these are enforced have evolved significantly from handshakes and agreements over the fence.

In the last few decades, in order to protect the value of each property, developers have become increasingly concerned with not only managing the look and feel of their subdivision, but also prescribing the rights and obligations of property owners within those developments.

There are a number of ways that developers can do this; the arrangements vary depending on a number of factors ­– each coming with its own pros and cons for prospective owners.

 

Residents’ societies

These are becoming increasingly popular in larger scale developments. Residents’ societies are usually incorporated societies; their structure and requirements are governed by the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. Membership to these societies is often mandatory by virtue of a land covenant registered on the record of title to each property in the development. The society’s rules can be found on the Incorporated Societies Register.

Residents’ societies are usually responsible for the maintenance of any shared property within the development such as communal greenspaces or perhaps a tennis court. Each property owner is required to pay an annual levy for the maintenance of these areas.

A benefit of a residents’ society is that generally it will enforce the rules that individual property owners within that development must adhere to. In that way, as an individual property owner you won’t have to seek your own legal advice and incur cost if, say, your neighbour refuses to trim their hedge. However, a dispute with the residents’ society itself would require you to seek your own legal advice.

Due to residents’ societies falling within a statutory framework not designed specifically for them, there are a number of inflexibilities that means they may not always be the most desirable option when setting up a governance structure in a development.

One problem is that the minimum membership for an incorporated society is 10 members. Therefore a development comprising fewer than 10 properties/members cannot be an incorporated society. There are some exceptions to that membership requirement whereby a body corporate comprises three ordinary members.[1] In that instance a residents’ society may work for smaller developments.

Failing that exception, however, the developer will most often need to choose between a unit title or another mechanism to provide for governance between the property owners.

Further, when the residents’ society is wound up, any surplus assets held cannot be distributed to members of the residents’ society, instead they must be advanced to a nominated not-for-profit entity. This is very problematic as those assets will be critical to the development.

 

Unit title developments

Unit title developments exist within their own statutory framework – the Unit Titles Act 2010. They are usually administered by a body corporate which is responsible for collecting levies from the property owners, maintaining common buildings and assets, and administering the body corporate rules.

The body corporate manages the maintenance of the shared facilities – and in some instances the units themselves – in a similar way to a residents’ society. The body corporate will have an ability to issue levies to contribute to a maintenance fund.

The benefit of buying a unit title property is that the legislation prescribes minimum disclosure requirements before you enter into a contract for sale of a unit title property and before settlement.

This transparency can appeal to a buyer who would otherwise need to rely on their own due diligence in reviewing a residents’ society rules to ascertain any additional financial contributions they may have to make.

 

Land covenants

Property developers may use land covenants where there is little desire for a formal separate governance or management entity to administer the rules. The developer can simply prescribe requirements and obligations on the property owners through a land covenant registered on each record of title. These are enforceable by the owners of benefitted land, and often the developer.

A land covenant can be a cost-effective way to impose some obligations on the property owners, but without requiring annual levies or fees to be paid.

This can, however, become complicated when adjoining properties need joint insurance policies to be held by the property owners over their adjoining properties. Having to explain to a prospective purchaser that they must work out insurance arrangements between themselves and the other owners can be off-putting for a buyer.

As a consequence of this, a unit title structure, particularly where homes are adjoining, is probably a better structure for a developer to use.

 

Get advice early on

If you are considering doing any development work you should talk with us about the best structure for your purposes and whether any covenants should be registered on the titles.

If you are buying a property within a development bound by one or a combination of these structures, we can advise about what rules and obligations you may be bound by before signing on the dotted line.

[1] Section 14 of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Purchasing a house

Conveyancing, First Home Buyers, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates, Young Professionals
0

Lukes friend Tom was excited to have found a property he wanted to buy and was preparing to make an offer. Having purchased property before, Luke suggested Tom speak with a lawyer before signing anything and passed on his lawyer’s contact details.

 

When Tom met with the lawyer, he learned about the purchase process and the importance of protecting his assets. Although he intended to buy the property in his sole name, he had not considered the implications of relationship property laws or the need for a Contracting Out Agreement with his girlfriend.

 

Although Tom wanted to make an unconditional offer to appeal to the vendor, his lawyer advised he needed the following conditions:

  1. KiwiSaver Approval Condition: To get KiwiSaver approval, Tom’s lawyer would need to send an application to his provider, who could take 10 to 15 working days to respond.
  2. Finance condition: Tom’s conditional loan approval from his bank was not enough. He needed unconditional approval and time to work through the bank’s conditions.
  3. Builder’s report condition: Although the property looked in good condition at a glance, there could often be structural issues that only a qualified building inspector would identify.

 

The agreement was signed and Tom started working through his conditions. The builder’s report identified some major structural issues in the living room and he ended up negotiating a significant price reduction from the vendor.

 

Tom soon satisfied his conditions, and settlement was complete a few weeks later. He was glad he took the time to work through his due diligence prior to purchasing.

Macayla Brdanovic

KiwiSaver changes open the door to first farm ownership

Banking & Finance, Government & Policy, Property Law, Rural & Agricultural Law, Wealth & Retirement Planning
0

Good news for rural workers

The government has announced important changes to KiwiSaver that will make it easier for farmers and rural workers to use their KiwiSaver to buy their first farm. These reforms acknowledge the unique way in which farms are owned and operated in New Zealand.

For many in the rural sector, particularly sharemilkers, contract milkers and farm managers eager to climb the property ladder, this represents a meaningful step toward farm ownership.

Legislation giving effect to these changes will be introduced to Parliament in the middle of the year.

 

Key changes

Until now, KiwiSaver first-home withdrawals have been limited to residential property purchases, with strict requirements that the buyer both owns and lives in the home. This has created barriers for those pursuing farm ownership, as farms are often:

  • Purchased through companies or trusts, rather than in an individual’s name, and
  • Used as both a business and a place of residence, sometimes with accommodation arrangements tied to employment.

The upcoming changes are designed to address these challenges by allowing eligible KiwiSaver members to withdraw their funds to buy a first farm, even where the ownership structure is more complex.

 

Who can benefit?

The updated rules will apply to people who would ordinarily qualify for KiwiSaver first-home withdrawal, who have contributed to KiwiSaver for at least three years and not previously owned a home (or being approved as a ‘second chance’ buyer). The changes are aimed at first-time farm buyers, not those expanding existing farming operations.

 

Key conditions

While the rules are becoming more flexible, there are still some important conditions for first-time farm buyers:

  • Control of the farm: You must have a meaningful ownership interest in the entity purchasing the farm (for example, a majority shareholding or controlling interest). This ensures KiwiSaver is being used to support genuine ownership, not passive investment
  • Connection to the property: The farm must still have a residential element connected to you. While the strict ‘live in the home’ rule is being relaxed, the purchase must still align with the intent of helping you secure your primary place of living and working
  • First property focus: The withdrawal remains limited to your first property purchase (or equivalent approved situation), and
  • Standard application process: You will still need to apply through your KiwiSaver provider, providing supporting documents such as a signed sale and purchase agreement and statutory declarations.

 

Why this matters for farmers

For many in the dairy and wider farming sector, progressing from employment or sharemilking into ownership has always required significant capital. KiwiSaver is often one of the few accumulated assets available to younger farmers. By allowing KiwiSaver funds to be used in farm purchases — and recognising company and trust structures – the law is now better aligned with how farming businesses actually operate.

This change is expected to improve access to deposits for first-time farm buyers, support succession planning within the rural sector and help younger farmers transition into ownership earlier.

 

Considerations before proceeding

While the changes are positive, there is still some complexity involved. Before relying on KiwiSaver funds for a farm purchase, it is important to consider:

  • How the farm purchase will be legally structured
  • Whether your level of ownership meets the control requirements
  • The impact on lending and finance arrangements, and
  • Ensuring your application meets your KiwiSaver provider’s requirements.

We recommend you seek legal and financial advice early in the process; this will help ensure everything is set up correctly from the outset.

 

Final thoughts

These reforms mark a practical and long-overdue shift in KiwiSaver policy. By acknowledging that farms are both homes and businesses, the government will create a more realistic pathway for rural New Zealanders to enter farm ownership.

With the changes in the legislative pipeline, if you are considering farm ownership, now is a good time to start planning and take advice on how best to position yourself.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Caveats

Property Law, Real Estate Transactions, Relationship Property, Risk Management, Wealth & Asset Planning
0

What are they?

A caveat is a warning and, once registered, notifies the world at large to ‘be aware’ of a potential claim.
In the property sector, a caveat is a legal instrument that can be registered against a property title to protect a person’s rights or interests in respect of a particular property. A caveat prevents the registered owner/s of the property from transferring, selling or disposing of, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with it.

Why register a caveat?

The Land Transfer Act 2017 stipulates when caveats can be registered. It is important that the person wanting to register a caveat (the caveator) meets specific requirements as set out in the legislation.

The caveator must have a ‘caveatable interest’ in the property. The legislation specifies the situations in which a caveatable interest may exist. If you think you may have a caveatable interest in a property, we encourage you to talk with us about your particular situation.

One common scenario in which caveats are registered is when a person dies and the executors of their will are in the process of transferring or otherwise dealing with the deceased person’s property. The deceased’s former partner or spouse may register a caveat (called a notice of claim in this situation) against the deceased’s property to protect their interests and their right to bring any claims under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This is particularly common in situations where executors are unwilling to cooperate or consider such claims.

Another situation in which caveats are commonly registered is where a person is a beneficiary of a trust and has an expressly recorded entitlement to a particular property or piece of land. That beneficiary may wish to prevent their entitlement from being transferred or otherwise dealt with, and so may register a caveat to protect their proprietary interest.

It is important to keep in mind that registering a caveat is not a decision that should be made lightly. There are serious potential consequences for the caveator if a caveat is improperly registered. The Act allows people affected by the registration of a caveat to claim compensation for loss or damage against the person who registered it, especially where there was no caveatable interest to begin with. Lawyers can also face liability and be penalised for assisting their client to register a caveat where there is no caveatable interest. Claims for compensation are heard and determined by the High Court.

One situation in which people may seek to claim compensation is when the sale of the property has been impacted or delayed by the registration of a caveat, and there were no reasonable grounds to justify the registration of the caveat or sustain one in the first place. Affected people may apply to the court for compensation for loss or damage. This compensation could include an award of compensatory damages (to compensate and restore the claimant to the financial position they would have been in had the caveat not been registered) and, in extreme cases, punitive damages (designed to punish the caveator).

Registering a caveat

Once you have confirmed a caveatable interest in a particular property, you should discuss with us about registering that caveat. We will prepare and ask you to sign an Authority and Instruction Form. This confirms your instructions and facilitates registration of the caveat on the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) database.

When can caveats be removed?

There are three situations in which caveats are removed:

  1. By consent
  2. If the caveat lapses, or
  3. By a court order.

More commonly, caveats are removed when the parties have set aside their differences, and the caveator may decide to withdraw the caveat from the property title.[1]

Further, the Act[2] provides that a caveat may lapse following an application made by an affected person, usually the registered owner of the property, to the Land Transfer Registrar, unless a specific and timely response is received from both the caveator and the court. The caveat will lapse unless the caveator makes an application to the court within 10 working days to sustain the caveat, and the court makes one of three types of order within a further 20 working days. The orders the court can make include an interim or temporary order that the caveat not lapse, a final order or an order postponing the caveator’s application for the time being.

As well, the Act[3] confirms that a person who has an estate or interest affected by a caveat may apply to the court for an order that the caveat be removed. This means that the registered owner, for example, may apply to the court rather than to the Land Transfer Registrar seeking removal of the caveat. Claims for compensation for loss or damage may also be made at the same time.

In summary, a caveat is a robust tool for protecting one’s rights and interests over real property. It is important to receive sound legal advice on the effects and implications of registering a caveat, due to the risks and consequences associated with registering one incorrectly.

[1] Section 144.

[2] Section 143.

[3] Section 142.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Options to buy a property during a cost of living crisis

Banking & Finance, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wealth & Asset Planning
0

While the property market has settled somewhat after the Covid boom, house prices in New Zealand are still high. For many, buying a home on your own is no longer viable. It is becoming necessary to consider alternative structures to help make buying a property more affordable.

Borrowing from parents

It is not a new concept, but the rise of house prices in New Zealand has meant that it is very difficult to buy a home without some extra financial help from mum and dad.

If this seems to be a realistic plan, it is important that both you and your parents get separate advice on how this could be structured.

Loans are an effective way for parents to help their children buy a home, without exposing those funds to relationship property losses. Lenders will often want money from parents to be a gift as part of a purchase. However, careful advice and structuring of money from the bank of mum and dad can mean that parents can provide financial assistance without fear of losing half of their money if a child and their partner separate.

It is possible for parental loans and bank loans to both exist in harmony provided you seek the right advice up front. You want to ensure all parties are protected before taking that first step to buy a property.

Co-ownership

Owning a home with a friend or relative to alleviate the rising costs is becoming a more common way for Kiwis to get onto the property ladder.

An important step to include as part of entering into co-ownership arrangements is to set out and define both parties’ understanding and expectations in respect of the property expenses, each party’s initial contributions and what happens if one of you dies, or wants or needs to sell their share.

These considerations are typically set out in what is called a property sharing agreement. Again, good advice before you buy a property with a friend or family member and a comprehensive property sharing agreement will help both parties understand their own rights and obligations before it is too late. As well, it assists to preserve whatever relationship you have with your co-owner if you do decide to go your separate ways.

Property sharing agreements can cover a range of co-ownership relationships from parent/child, siblings, other more remote family relationships or friends. Co-ownership in a de facto or spousal relationship, however, requires different specialist advice. Before you dive into buying a property with your friend, speak to us about ensuring both parties are protected and go into the venture fully aware of what you are getting into.

Iwi schemes

There are now a range of iwi schemes available for Māori to enter into shared equity ownership with either a scheme provider or their local iwi.

The criteria to qualify for these schemes differs depending on the scheme, but usually these are predominantly based on whether or not your whakapapa to a particular iwi, along with requiring some financial assistance to buy your first home.

The iwi or scheme provider buys a share of the property with you on specifically drafted terms that govern your shared ownership. These also usually include a timeframe in which you are meant to buy out the iwi or scheme provider from the shared equity arrangement, ultimately resulting in you owning your own property.

Other schemes with a wider base or catchment may assist members from a region or iwi or locality.

Understanding the criteria to apply and/or the rules that govern any iwi-based shared equity schemes are important. Be sure to contact us for advice on how the scheme that you qualify for works and what you have to do to keep to your side of the deal.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

An agreement to lease and a deed of lease

Commercial Law, Leasing & Property, Property Law, Real Estate Transactions, Small Business Advice, Uncategorized
0

How are they different?

An agreement to lease and a deed of lease are two similar, but different, documents. The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ), formerly the Auckland District Law Society, provides a ‘standard’ form of both an agreement to lease and a deed of lease. Most commercial leases use this ‘standard’ form of agreement to lease or deed of lease.

Agreement to lease

An agreement to lease sets out the main commercial terms of a lease, such as the term, annual rent and rights of renewal. It can also contain further details regarding the fitout and other alterations which the tenant intends to do to ensure the premises are suitable for its business use. It can also set out how the cost and ownership of the fitout and alterations will be met between landlords and tenants.

Agreements to lease can often be conditional agreements while the tenant works through a due diligence process to ensure the property is suitable for its intended use, or to ensure that it can obtain the necessary territorial authority consents to operate its business.

Once any conditions have been satisfied, the agreement to lease is a binding agreement between the landlord and tenant; it can only be cancelled in accordance with the terms of the agreement. An agreement to lease states that a tenant must enter into a deed of lease on the standard TLANZ form once prepared by the landlord.

Deed of lease

Like an agreement to lease, the deed of lease also sets out the main commercial terms of the lease, such as the term, annual rent and rights of renewal. It goes further than the agreement to lease; it allows a tenant to assign the lease and additional terms set out the position in relation to the day-to-day management of the lease, such as maintenance obligations for both the landlord and the tenant, and what happens at the end of the lease.

Why you should also enter into a deed of lease

An agreement to lease does not allow the tenant to assign its interest in the lease. However, a deed of lease does allow this. If a tenant wishes to sell its business, they will need to enter into a deed of lease to have the benefit of the assignment provisions in the deed of lease. If the tenant wants to obtain bank lending for its business, the lender may want to see the deed of lease, and may require that a deed of lease is entered into as part of its financing approval.

The agreement to lease provides that the parties will enter into a deed of lease on the ‘then current’ form of deed of lease.

Most importantly, the agreement to lease also incorporates all of the terms of the standard deed of lease, so the landlord and tenant are agreeing to be bound by a document they have not seen or signed. In particular, if the parties have not received legal advice before entering into the agreement to lease, they may not have full knowledge of the terms of the deed of lease and what they have agreed to, and may find that the obligations in the deed of lease are not as they expected.

We can help

While agreements to lease can be helpful, we recommend that you enter into a deed of lease shortly after the agreement to lease is unconditional and/or the lease has commenced. This will help ensure that all parties have a full understanding of the terms of the lease and all the benefits (and obligations) offered under the lease.

We can help in advising on the terms of the agreement to lease and the resulting deed of lease prior to execution. We can also assist with documenting the terms of an agreement to lease into a deed of lease.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Considering Retirement Village Living

Estate Planning, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Retirement Planning, Succession Planning
0

A few years on from her decision to take out a reverse equity mortgage, and having enjoyed the benefits of releasing some of the capital tied up in her home, Karen is now feeling less confident about living on her own. Many of her old friends have moved away from her neighbourhood, and she is finding that she would like more support close at hand. She has decided to investigate moving into a retirement village.

This option offers several advantages. Karen would no longer need to worry about home maintenance, security, insurance, or rates. She would have ready access to assistance should she suffer a fall or other medical event. And if she feels like company, there would be plenty of like-minded people nearby.

However, Karen has been warned that there can be significant financial implications when selling a home and buying into a retirement village. To fully understand her position, she meets with her solicitor.

Her solicitor explains that most — though not all — retirement villages operate under Occupation Right Agreements (ORAs). Under an ORA, Karen would pay a capital sum in exchange for the right to live in her chosen unit. She would not own the land or building itself, and her right to occupy the unit would be subject to certain terms and conditions.

These conditions often include payment of a regular weekly fee for as long as the unit is occupied. There is also usually a deferred management fee (sometimes called an exit fee), which is deducted from the original capital sum when Karen leaves the village — whether that is because she chooses to move elsewhere or upon her death. In addition, there will be village rules governing what residents can and cannot do within their units and the wider village.

Karen’s solicitor takes the time to carefully explain the legal and financial implications, including how the move may affect the estate she intends to leave to her family. Once Karen fully understands her options, she is in a position to decide whether a move to a retirement village is the right step for her.

 

Mandy Rasmussen

Luke & Sally’s First Home Journey

Buying with Confidence, First Home Buyers, Inheritance & Property, KiwiSaver & First Home Grant, Legal Guidance for Home Buyers, LIM & Builder’s Reports, Luke & Sally’s Journey, Property Law, Real Estate Transactions, Settlement & Conveyancing
0

Luke and Sally recently began the exciting adventure of buying their very first home.

This opportunity came about following the sad passing of Steve, from whom they received an inheritance. This opened the door for them to take their first step onto the property ladder something they had long hoped for.

 

From the very beginning, Luke and Sally involved their lawyer and that made all the difference. Before signing anything, their lawyer carefully reviewed the draft Agreement for Sale and Purchase.

 

Together, they worked through the terms to ensure Luke and Sally understood them fully, and that the Agreement included all the conditions they needed to protect their interests.

 

For many first-home buyers, these conditions often include:

Finance approval – making sure lending is in place.
KiwiSaver withdrawal or First Home Grant – ensuring these funds can be used in time.
LIM report – checking council records for any issues.
Builder’s report – confirming the home is sound and safe.
Toxicology report – reassurance that the property isn’t contaminated with any toxic substances such as methamphetamine.
Any other conditions the buyers consider necessary – because every purchase is unique.

 

Once the Agreement was signed, Luke and Sally’s lawyer continued to guide them through every step of the transaction. They assisted with satisfying each condition, provided clear instructions for paying the deposit, and managed all the details between the Agreement going unconditional and settlement day. From liaising with the bank to preparing loan and mortgage documents, their lawyer ensured nothing was left to chance.

 

Finally, on settlement day, Luke and Sally received the keys to their new home with peace of mind knowing that every stage of the process had been looked after with care.

 

At Edmonds Judd, we encourage buyers to involve their lawyer from the very beginning. From reviewing the draft Agreement, through the conditional and unconditional phases of the transaction, to settlement itself — having the right legal guidance makes the journey smoother, safer, and far less stressful.

 

Here’s to new beginnings and secure decisions.

Rachael Beattie

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]