I beleave the market has missunderstimated the danger to Synlait arising from the covenants issue.
Some think a permitted use from the Council trumps a covenant, it doesn't.
Land covenants are a long established mechanism allowing sellers of property to place restrictions on land use negotiated at time of sale and are transmittable if the land is on-sold. The type of covenant most people would know of is when a subdivision developer places a build-by deadline or a construction quality standard on section purchasers.
The Supreme Court is a precedent setting body so any decision in favour of Synlait would then be the law which applies to all covenants throughout the Dominion. Would the Supreme Court be willing to overturn long established law simply to accommodate Synlait?
The Land Transfer Act was updated in 2017. Some defect in this legislation may give Synlait wriggle room.
It is not beyond the bounds of reason for the Supreme Court to decline to hear the appeal or decide against Synlait and Synlait is unable to come to an agreement with the covenantor(Mr Ye Quing) The covenantor may then apply to a court to halt construction or even bulldoze the plant and return it to farm land.
There is another off the wall possibility. Mr Ye may be a citizen of the Peoples Republic and a major shareholder hails from there. The Marxist Government in Beijing may convene a Revolutionary Tribunal to sort it out.
I beleave the market has missunderstimated the danger to Synlait arising from the covenants issue.
Some think a permitted use from the Council trumps a covenant, it doesn't.
Land covenants are a long established mechanism allowing sellers of property to place restrictions on land use negotiated at time of sale and are transmittable if the land is on-sold. The type of covenant most people would know of is when a subdivision developer places a build-by deadline or a construction quality standard on section purchasers.
The Supreme Court is a precedent setting body so any decision in favour of Synlait would then be the law which applies to all covenants throughout the Dominion. Would the Supreme Court be willing to overturn long established law simply to accommodate Synlait?
The Land Transfer Act was updated in 2017. Some defect in this legislation may give Synlait wriggle room.
It is not beyond the bounds of reason for the Supreme Court to decline to hear the appeal or decide against Synlait and Synlait is unable to come to an agreement with the covenantor(Mr Ye Quing) The covenantor may then apply to a court to halt construction or even bulldoze the plant and return it to farm land.
There is another off the wall possibility. Mr Ye may be a citizen of the Peoples Republic and a major shareholder hails from there. The Marxist Government in Beijing may convene a Revolutionary Tribunal to sort it out.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
AGREE, I wouldn't touch SML until this is sorted, only a fool would IMHO !!!
I beleave the market has missunderstimated the danger to Synlait arising from the covenants issue.
Some think a permitted use from the Council trumps a covenant, it doesn't.
Land covenants are a long established mechanism allowing sellers of property to place restrictions on land use negotiated at time of sale and are transmittable if the land is on-sold. The type of covenant most people would know of is when a subdivision developer places a build-by deadline or a construction quality standard on section purchasers.
The Supreme Court is a precedent setting body so any decision in favour of Synlait would then be the law which applies to all covenants throughout the Dominion. Would the Supreme Court be willing to overturn long established law simply to accommodate Synlait?
The Land Transfer Act was updated in 2017. Some defect in this legislation may give Synlait wriggle room.
It is not beyond the bounds of reason for the Supreme Court to decline to hear the appeal or decide against Synlait and Synlait is unable to come to an agreement with the covenantor(Mr Ye Quing) The covenantor may then apply to a court to halt construction or even bulldoze the plant and return it to farm land.
There is another off the wall possibility. Mr Ye may be a citizen of the Peoples Republic and a major shareholder hails from there. The Marxist Government in Beijing may convene a Revolutionary Tribunal to sort it out.
Supreme court agrees to hear oral arguments before deciding whether a formal appeal will be allowed. Interesting development. No date set so this drags on and on and on...
I hope SML have superb legal counsel capable of mustering an exceptionally good oral argument otherwise...
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
Not good that it turns out the factory shouldn't be there.
If they lose it could cost them a lot of money or demilish the factory and try suing the vendor of the land.
The only thing people want to know about synlait is what's happening at pokeno. And that is thing the company has zero interest in talking about
Sensitive negotiations taking place behind the scenes - they would be foolish to be like Trump and tweet about it!
SML made a mistake imo when deciding on Pokeno - should have invited Tanui or another Maori party to participate. Then, there would have been absolutely no problem.
Originally Posted by ratkin
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks