Introduction
1. Cross-lease properties are a common form of residential ownership in New Zealand. However, they often give rise to complex disputes — particularly when one owner makes changes to their exclusive-use area without the required consent of others. A recent High Court decision, Hall & Anor v Geary Ltd & Ors [2025] NZHC 1004, provides valuable guidance for landlords and property owners navigating these situations.
2. The judgment clarifies what qualifies as a “structure” under standard cross-lease agreements, when consent may be reasonably withheld, and how courts approach relief against lease cancellation under the Property Law Act 2007. It is essential reading for anyone involved in managing or enforcing cross-lease covenants in New Zealand.
The Dispute: Swim-Spa Installation Without Consent
3. The case involved a cross-lease residential property at Milford Beach, Auckland. The plaintiffs, trustees of a family trust, owned the ground-floor flat and installed a swim-spa — a large permanent spa-pool designed for aquatic exercise — in their exclusive-use courtyard.
4. They did so without obtaining prior consent from the other flat owners, who also acted as landlords under the cross-lease arrangement. The lease contained a Clause 10, which stated that no structure, fence or outbuilding could be erected without the lessors’ written consent, which must not be unreasonably withheld.
5. The neighbouring owners, Mr and Mrs Whetton, strongly objected. They argued the spa disrupted their views, privacy, and amenity, and served a PLA notice requiring its removal. The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for relief against lease cancellation under s 256 of the Property Law Act 2007.
Legal Issues: Structure, Consent, and Reasonableness
6. The Court was asked to determine:
- Whether the swim-spa was a “structure” under Clause 10;
- Whether the landlords’ refusal of consent was unreasonable;
- Whether the plaintiffs should be granted relief against lease cancellation under the PLA.
Was the Swim-Spa a “Structure” Under the Cross Lease?
7. The plaintiffs argued that the spa was not a structure, but a movable object — essentially an appliance — not permanently affixed to the land.
8. The Court rejected this. Justice Walker found that the spa sat on a steel-reinforced concrete pad, included timber steps and a motorised cover, and was clearly intended as a permanent fixture.
9. The Court stated that the meaning of “structure” must be understood in context — and in a cross-lease environment, anything that changes the physical environment in a significant and ongoing way may qualify as a structure. In this case, the spa clearly altered the appearance, use, and enjoyment of the common property and neighbouring areas.
10. For landlords or co-owners under a cross-lease, this ruling confirms that substantial installations — even if technically removable — can be treated as structures if they are permanent or materially impact others.
Was Consent Unreasonably Withheld?
11. Clause 10 of the lease required that consent not be unreasonably withheld. The Court had to decide whether the Whettons were justified in objecting.
12. The Whettons submitted that the spa:
- Obstructed their view of the beachfront and garden area;
- Reduced their privacy and enjoyment of their exclusive area;
- Affected the aesthetic appearance of the shared property;
- Might negatively influence resale value.
13. The plaintiffs argued that the objections were overstated, noting:
- The spa was positioned to minimise intrusion;
- It was used infrequently, and mainly for medical reasons;
- They had exclusive rights to the area where it was installed.
14. The Court ultimately sided with the Whettons. It found that the visual and amenity impacts were genuine, especially given the property’s open-plan, beach-facing design. The decision makes clear that lessors are entitled to object, provided their concerns are reasonable, specific, and not arbitrary.
Relief Against Lease Cancellation: Section 256 PLA
15. Under s 256 of the Property Law Act 2007, tenants facing lease cancellation may apply for relief, and the Court has wide discretion to grant it, often on conditions.
16. Justice Walker acknowledged that lease cancellation is a severe remedy, and that the plaintiffs’ breach, while significant, could still be remedied. The Court was also cautious not to penalise the plaintiffs excessively where cancellation could lead to a forced sale of their home.
17. Ultimately, the Court granted relief against cancellation, but only on strict conditions: the spa had to be removed within two months. This approach balanced the enforcement of lease terms with proportionality and fairness.
What This Means for Cross-Lease Landlords
18. Hall v Geary offers clear guidance for those managing cross-lease relationships, whether as landlords, trustees, or co-owners:
- “Structures” include more than just buildings – spas, pergolas, decks, or sheds may all qualify;
- Consent is not optional – even in exclusive-use areas, changes affecting others must be approved;
- Refusal of consent must be reasonable – loss of amenity or privacy is valid;
- Relief from lease cancellation is discretionary – tenants who breach must remedy the issue;
- Clear communication and documentation are vital – especially before installing or objecting to changes.
Key Takeaways for Property Owners
- 1. Get written consent before installing any structure
Even if you’re the only one using the space, cross-lease terms still apply. Always get documented agreement. - 2. Clarify what “structure” means in your lease
If ambiguous, consult legal advice. A court will interpret it in context. - 3. Objecting owners must be fair and factual
Refusals should be based on amenity or practical impact — not personal dislike. - 4. The Court may grant relief — but not without consequences
You may be given time to fix the issue, but won’t be excused from compliance. - 5. Cross-lease arrangements require cooperation
Communication, respect, and legal clarity go a long way in shared ownership.
Conclusion
24. Cross-lease disputes are among the most common sources of tension in New Zealand property law. Hall v Geary [2025] shows how the courts will enforce lease terms, balance competing interests, and interpret structural clauses in a practical, context-driven way.
25. For landlords and property owners alike, the key is clear: treat your lease as a legal contract — and when in doubt, seek consent, document everything, and be prepared to defend your position fairly and reasonably.
This article does not constitute legal advice. If you need assistance with your case, please book a consult with our law firm.