Applicant
Cloudy Bay Vineyards Limited
Case number(s)
201900453
Decision date
Type
Decision
DecisionConsent granted
Section 12(a) Overseas Investment Act 2005
Decision MakerThe Minister for Land Information and Hon Stuart Nash
Decision Date29 July 2020
Pathway(s)Sensitive land – substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand
InvestmentAn overseas investment in sensitive land, being the Applicant's acquisition of a freehold interest in 9.5213 hectares of land at 164 Jacksons Road, Rapaura.
ConsiderationWithheld under s9(2)(b)(ii) of the Official Information Act
ApplicantCloudy Bay Vineyards Limited
Diageo Plc, United Kingdom (34.0%)
LVMH Moёt Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA, France (66.0%)
VendorBarbara Mary Muir, Nathan Paul Muir and Wisheart Macnab and Partners Trustee Company Limited
Wishart Macnab and Partners Trustee Company Limited, New Zealand (33.4%)
Nathan Paul Muir, New Zealand (33.3%)
Barbara Mary Muir, New Zealand (33.3%)
Background

Cloudy Bay Vineyards Limited (Cloudy Bay) seeks consent to acquire approximately 9.5213 hectares of land at 164 Jacksons Road, Rapaura, Blenheim (the Land).

Cloudy Bay is an established New Zealand winemaker, well-known for its sauvignon blanc wine which represents approximately 78% of its output and of which 98% is exported. Cloudy Bay is ultimately 66% owned by LVMH Moёt Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA, a multinational luxury brand conglomerate, and 34% owned by Diageo plc, a United-Kingdom based alcohol beverage company.

Cloudy Bay seeks to acquire the Land, which is currently planted 6.3 hectares in sauvignon blanc grapes and 1.3 hectares in pinot gris grapes, to bolster its production of sauvignon blanc. It plans to replant the 1.3 hectares of pinot gris grapes into sauvignon blanc and apply to the land its labour-intensive harvesting techniques. Cloudy Bay’s long track-record of wine production and its existing global distribution networks will assist in its ability to command a premium overseas as compared to average New Zealand sauvignon blanc prices.

This application was called-in by Ministers to decide. Ministers considered that the benefit established in relation to the size and nature of the land was ‘substantial and identifiable’, and therefore that consent should be granted.

More informationCatherine Reid
Barrister
catherine@catherinereid.co.nz