Ann: SML Announcement - Supreme Court Update, page-288

I have reiterated many time that I believe it is not necessary for the covenant to be extinguished. Synlait Pokeno would operate as per normal, regardless whether the covenant exist or not.
Righto, now I have put your "fatal flaw" argument to bed I am convinced more than every you remain blissfully unaware of the risks.

To derisk Synlait, the covenants MUST be extinguished. If the covenants are extinguished the only remaining issue is how much compensation will be payable by Stonehill to Mr Ye.

If the covenants arent extinguished Synlait are in breach of their covenant. Plain and simple and I think we agree on that.

Covenants are the very foundation of our property development law. There is no way at all that a person in breach is going to be allowed by the courts to get away with it. Imagine it - if this were to happen property developers would just willy nilly ignore any covenant they have signed up to. It would make covenants totally worthless.

All beneficiaries would still get whatever benefit the covenant offers.
We keep going over this. Ignoring it won't go away. One of the benefits is having a neighbour who can't complain or bring legal action. I asked earlier, but you didn't answer. What do you reckon an owner of a relatively steep bit of land has to complain about. What do you think a person can complain about if they knew the neighbouring land was zoned for a quarry. What do you think a consenting Authority is going to make of a complaint from a business that has built on covented land?

Think about it - one of the conditions of the sale / purchase of the Pokeno land was the removal of the covenants. Synlait obviously saw problems with buying covented land. If there were no problems they wouldn't have put that clause in.

Injunction would never be just so would be close to impossible while any damages would be severely limited.
Injunction is just - because Synlait have built on land they ought not to have. Simple as that really.

The law is also very clear. You can't derive an "unlawful" benefit without paying for it.

Have you done your homework on "punitive damages"?