1. Irrelevant. Synlait have repeatedly stressed they are very...

1. Irrelevant. Synlait have repeatedly stressed they are very comfortable with the legal advice they have recieved. They are ultimately responsible for their actions. And, frankly, any nincompoop understands that commencing a build in knowing breach of a covenant does not require legal advice.

2. Synlait, as per the covenant are liable for all legal costs including Mr Ye's. The usual "looser pays costs" is unlikely to apply.

3. You operate within the know legal and contractual framework. Synlait knew, originally they were bound by a contractual covenant. They ignored it.
For a brief period they built while the covenant was effectively extinguished. But within days of that permitting court Decision Mr Ye sent them notice of his Appeal. What is at the heart of today hearing is - can the contractual benefits and obligations continued in a covenant be relied on. This is a huge case fro NZ property law - because many of our land developments have covenants attached. It is for this basic reason I see it unlikely the Supreme Court will over tuned decades of covenant law precedent. (Excepting of course there is new law upon which new precedents can be set - and this is what this court case will achieve)

4. J G Miles QC and A J Horne