Skip to main content

A commercial activity is a commercial activity regardless of whether it is carried out for private profit or to achieve charitable goals

In Webster v Doak (New Zealand), the appeal concerns the desire of the second Respondent (Children’s Health Camps the New Zealand Foundation for Child and Family Health and Development known as Stand Children’s Services (Stand)) to use a building on land it owns in Paraparaumu (the land) for the purposes of establishing a “Children’s Village” (a children’s health camp). In late 2015, Stand sought a declaration in the High Court to the effect that a restrictive covenant registered against the title to the land will not prevent it using the building for a children’s health camp. The Appellants, together with six other immediate neighbours of the land, opposed the granting of the declaration. The restrictive covenant provides that, no buildings may be constructed or used for commercial or industrial use unless such use is a predominant use under the code of ordinances of the Kapiti Coast District Council for such lot. The issue is whether the use of the building on the land as a children’s health camp would be a commercial use that is prohibited by the restrictive covenant.

The court said words should be given a meaning in tune with the environment in which the document is intended to function. A commercial activity is a commercial activity regardless of whether it is carried out for private profit or to achieve charitable goals. Stand’s proposed use is not residential in the ordinary meaning of that term. Stand provides its services pursuant to contracts with the Crown. It intends to achieve a financial surplus, and its rules require any such surplus to be applied to its charitable purposes. The use of the building would include use as a regional service centre. It would provide office and administrative support for a regional manager whose role includes coordinating community outreach activities performed by eight community service workers.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the submissions for the Council that, the strongest indicator that “commercial use” was not intended to have a specialised meaning is that the Code of Ordinances in force at the time the covenant was drafted, did not contain or define that term. Instead, the Code used zoning to demarcate areas of land and set out “predominant uses”, specifying the activities that could be undertaken on land in a zone without consent. For commercial zones, the Code specified predominant uses often using the word “commercial”, but without defining it.

It follows that, if the parties to the Covenant had intended the prohibition on “commercial use” to be understood by reference to the code, ultimately that exercise would have led to the same endpoint — the ordinary meaning of the words. The District Plan definition of “commercial activity” is in a specialised context. Its purpose is to facilitate understanding of how the District Plan governs the use, development, and protection of land and other resources within the district.

Accordingly, it is found that whether Stand’s proposed use is a commercial use is to be determined by having regard to the natural meaning of that term read in the light of the fact that, this was a mostly residential and partly rural subdivision of considerable size. If Stand’s use is not commercial in this sense then the proviso does not need to be considered. If it is a commercial use in its natural meaning then the proviso, however interpreted, will not assist Stand.

The focus of the inquiry has to be on the use for the building which Stand proposes. It is the use that is the focus of the covenant. The task is not to define the scope of commercial but to determine if the proposed activity is prohibited by the covenant. Unless the scope of commercial has been defined — at least to an extent — then it is not possible to determine, if the proposed use is prohibited by the covenant for being commercial. The second part of that definition captures the commonly understood meaning of “commercial”. It is commerce for profit. A business. The proposed use is one of providing accommodation and therapeutic services to children and housing some of the necessary administrative operations that go along with that. This cannot be characterised as being engaged in commerce for profit.

If the Appellants’ argument for the unitary interpretation of the covenant was correct then neither the previously applicable Code of Ordinances nor the District Plan would allow Stand to use the building as a children’s health camp without some form of consent. The appeal is dismissed. The Appellants must pay the second Respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...