Glaister Keegan had its biennial firm photo this month, it was great to get the team together for this shot to celebrate the people behind the work!
A recent High Court decision has clarified whether owners can rent out their homes via Airbnb in subdivisions that restrict “commercial activity”. The outcome may surprise some. In Cameron Drive Management Company Ltd v Jo-Ann Real Estate Ltd [2025] NZHC 721 , a homeowner occasionally rented their holiday home on Airbnb. Other owners in the 14-lot subdivision believed this breached a land covenant, which stated no commercial activity could be carried out on or from a property except for “private homestays”. This exception applied so long as the homestays didn’t affect the neighbourhood’s character or others’ privacy. The Court was asked to decide whether short-term Airbnb rentals, where the owner is not present, counted as prohibited commercial activity. Interestingly, the Court found that, while Airbnb hosting is in fact a commercial activity, it did not breach this particular covenant. The key reason being that the business side of the transaction happened online; that is, off-site. The booking and payment were made via the Airbnb platform, not on the property itself. Once guests arrived, they simply stayed at the house like any other occupant. In contrast, a “private homestay” (which the covenant allowed) typically involves the owner being present and actively hosting. The Court explained that “private homestays” were known in 1999 (when the covenant was drafted) as situations where the owner stays in the house with guests. Airbnb-style renting, where the owner is absent, didn’t fit that model. But because the owner wasn’t actively running a business from the property during the rental period, there was no breach. This decision serves as a reminder that land covenants must be interpreted in light of their wording, intent, and context at the time they were created. If you're buying in a subdivision with covenants, it’s important to seek legal advice early on so you understand exactly what they mean and how they could limit what you can do with the property.
Trees offer a wide range of benefits. They improve air quality, offer cooling and shade, reduce soil erosion, beautify the land, and can increase the value of your property. Unfortunately, not everyone sees trees the same way.What is a peaceful garden feature to one neighbour, can be a nuisance (or even a threat) to another. Overhanging branches, invading roots, blocked sunlight, or leaf-clogged gutters can all spark tension, and lead to potentially bitter and costly legal disputes between otherwise friendly neighbours. At Glaister Keegan, we have seen first-hand when something as natural as a tree can become the “root” of a bitter, costly legal dispute. Here's what you need to know before taking action, and how we can assist you in protecting your rights. Your Rights as a Property Owner Every property owner has the right to enjoy and use their land, and that includes planting trees. But that right has limits. When a tree on your neighbour’s property starts affecting your land, the law steps in. Common problems include: overhanging branches crossing the boundary line roots damaging driveways, foundations, or pipes trees blocking access to sunlight or scenic views; and fallen leaves or branches clogging gutters and drains. Can You Just Cut It Back? Yes—But Carefully You are generally allowed to trim back any branches or roots that cross onto your property, but only up to the boundary line. This is known as “abatement.” However, there are a few important rules: you must not trespass onto your neighbour’s land you must not cause unnecessary harm to the tree or surrounding property; and because the cuttings still belong to your neighbour, you may be required to return the cuttings. Importantly, some trees are protected by local council regulations, resource consent conditions, or covenants on the title. Cutting or damaging a protected tree without permission could result in significant penalties. We strongly recommend getting legal advice before doing any trimming (even if the branches are clearly on your side). When Trees Cause Damage or Safety Hazards If a tree is damaging your property, you may be able to: remove the offending roots or branches (within legal limits); and recover the cost of repairs and removal through the Disputes Tribunal (for claims under $30,000) or District Court (for larger claims). If the tree poses a safety risk, or unreasonably interferes with your view, sunlight, or enjoyment of your land, you can apply to the Court for an order under the Property Law Act 2007. The Court can order your neighbour to trim or remove the tree if it is deemed fair and reasonable to do so. The Court will consider: what the risk to people, property, or health is whether your view or sunlight is being unduly obstructed whether the tree is interfering with crops, drains, or everyday enjoyment of your land what the tree’s public, historical, or cultural value is; and whether the tree existed before you bought your property. To succeed, you will need to show you will suffer more hardship if the tree stays than your neighbour would if it were removed. Timing and Costs If the Court orders the tree to be trimmed or removed, your neighbour usually has 20 working days to comply. While the Court can order them to contribute to the cost, the expense usually falls to the person making the application. Need Legal Advice? We are Here to Help If a tree is causing conflict between you and your neighbour or you are unsure of your legal position, talk to us first. We can guide you through your options, help you protect your rights, and, where needed, represent you in the Disputes Tribunal or Court. Contact our litigation team for practical, reliable advice before a small dispute takes root and grows into something much bigger. Paul Kim, Alex Wang, Brett Vautier