Neighbours at war: Closing arguments in ‘boxy’ house case
One neighbour reckons a house being built in a high-end Hamilton suburb is going to be a box-shaped blot on the landscape.
The other neighbour claims the first is being completely unreasonable by trying to veto the design of their dream home.
Closing arguments have been put in the High Court case of a former cricket star and his wife and the woman who sold them the property they are building a $5 million home on – but then objected to, on the basis their home design was too “boxy“, and therefore out of character with the surrounding rural landscape.
That landscape is Tamahere, and the case being heard as part of an injunction hearing in Hamilton that has captivated residents of the upmarket neighbourhood and many others in the Waikato.
Justice Michael Robinson, who has presided over the hearing, has reserved his decision on the case. He has much to mull in the meantime.
First up on Wednesday afternoon was Toby Braun, who is representing former Black Cap Matthew Hart – who has not attended the hearing – and his wife Sheree. A crucial aspect of the case, said Braun, was instructions passed on from the Harts’ neighbour Andrea Waddell via Paula Wenham, the real estate agent who sold them the home.
Wenham had told them Waddell was likely to be fine with their design “as long as it’s not boxy like those two houses’ you will have no problem with [getting Waddell’s] consent.”
The two houses in question were one further down Pencarrow Rd – where the Harts are building – and another in nearby Armistead Lane.
Much of the arguments came down to aesthetics, which were highly subjective. Waddell’s outright rejection of the Hart’s designs was extremely unfair, Braun said.
“The Harts’ house is going to enhance property values. It’s not like building a shack in a high end subdivision.”
“No reasonable person behaving reasonably would behave as [Waddell] did.”
Waddell had asserted her right to withhold approval of the home designs in a covenant included in the sale deal, although the wording of that covenant “was very, very broad”, Braun said.
Phillip Cornegé, who is representing Waddell in court, argued such broadness was entirely intentional.
“The Harts knew that what they were signing up for was a house with a restrictive covenant.”
Uppermost in their minds should have been the fact Waddell wanted a house next door that was undoubtedly a rural lifestyle property.
If the judge finds against the Harts, there is a chance he may order a major redesign be undertaken – even though construction is already well under way.
“What’s acceptable somewhere else might not be in that environment,” said Cornegé.
“When you purchase a property with such an open-ended covenant, you are assuming some risk if you rush ahead.”
Justice Robinson queried marketing material provided by Lodge, the real estate company handling the sale, which invited would-be purchasers to “build their dream home”.
Responded Cornegé: “[The Harts] were aware they did not have free reign to build whatever they wanted.”
Justice Robinson was not able to say when his judgment on the case would be made.