Airport terminal project can go to stage one

Press, 20 December 1986, Page 1

Airport terminal project can go to stage one

Air New Zealand has partly succeeded in an action to stop the Christchurch Airport Authority from leasing land at the southern end of the domestic terminal to Ansett New Zealand. The effect of an interim injunction. granted late yesterday afternoon by Mr Justice Holland in the High Court was that stage one of the proposed terminal for Ansett could go ahead.

However, stage two which would have extended into a 19m adjoining area cannot proceed because his Honour held that Air New Zealand had a 66-year lease over the area. His Honour held that that lease was not subject to the Airport Authorities Act.

The injunction was heard in chambers throughout the day.

Mr Justice Holland came into Court to deliver his long decision. Mr Nathan Gedye appeared for the plaintiff, Air New Zealand, which sought an interim injunction against the Christchurch City Council in the capacity of the Christchurch Airport Authority. The City Council was

represented by Mr Tom Weston.

In his decision, Mr Justice Holland said that the leases of Air New Zealand in the domestic and overseas sections of the terminal building were not in dispute. However, there was ah area, described as the freight-canopy area, affecting access to a baggage area of the domestic terminal and giving other space available to Air New Zealand which would go if the City Council were able to carry out a plan to grant a lease to Ansett to build a terminal. His ..Honour reviewed the history of the leasing arrangements between Air New Zealand and the council.

“I am satisfied that the Airport Authority had a long-standing tenant who was the major occupier of the terminal building and which did not regard the possibility of another major airport user requiring that space in the immediate future," his Honour said.

Air New Zealand, likewise,' might well have been lulled into a false sense of security that there was no urgency about completing the final legal arrangements for occupying the terminal. The airline did not feel that there was any risk of anyone else wanting to occupy the terminal.

This was reflected in that a letter from the council, in December,

1985, setting out the rental sought by the Airport Authority was not replied to by Air New Zealand until November 21 this year — some 11 months later.

This application for an interim injunction had been brought before the Court with great urgency, but he was entitled to assume that there was nothing in correspondence between those dates which was favourable to Air New Zealand’s case.

The Airport Authority on December 24, 1985, sent a letter to Air New Zealand stating the rental required after the expiry of the Domestic Terminal lease on September 30, 1985.

That rent was not accepted by Air New Zealand until November 21

this year. There was not an unqualified acceptance of the rental by Air NewZealand. Because of the lack of a contractual arrangement Air New Zealand had not established an arguable case of a contractual right to occupy the area in the domestic terminal which the Airport Authority proposed to lease to Ansett. In finding against Air New Zealand on this aspect of the action, Mr Justice Holland said, however, that affected only a small proportion of the land concerned, described as the freight-canopy area.

His Honour upheld the lease of Air New Zealand on the second area extending 19 metres into the cargo area. Costs were reserved.