What the Hall v Geary High Court decision — and recent media coverage — means for your vendors and buyers
By Brent Clode
This document constitutes Article 1 in an ongoing series designed for real estate professionals, focusing on cross-leases, unit titles, and subdivision law and practice.
1. Why this matters
The recent High Court case, Hall v Geary [2025] NZHC 1004, and media attention link to NZ Post article have exposed major risks with cross-leases. Cross-lease titles are more restrictive and legally unstable than many realize, impacting about 20% or 214,000 of New Zealand’s homes.
2. Summary of Hall v Geary
The case concerned a large swim-spa installed in an exclusive-use yard of a cross-lease property, which a neighbour found visually intrusive.
Industry warning: Without co-lessor consent, structures may be removed by court order and can attract high remedy and legal costs, in this case about $150,000.
3. What counts as a “structure”?
According to Hall v Geary and case law, items like spa and swimming pools, sheds, cabins, retaining walls, decks, pergolas, air-conditioning units, solar panels, fences, large shades, or any noticeable semi-permanent structures all require unanimous consent. Installing these without co-lessor or landlord consent may create future legal issues for owners.
4. Key considerations for agents
Web Development by Byte Media.