A Person or Persons Unknown v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 60/2010
[2010] NZSC 106

BETWEENA PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN

Applicant
ANDNGAI-TUPANGO-HAPU INC

Second Applicant

ANDTEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and William Young JJ
Counsel:D A Wood for Respondent

Judgment:25 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to be paid by the second applicant to the respondent.

REASONS
[1]        The proposed appeal is against the Court of Appeal’s refusal of an application for stay of a judgment in the High Court which made an order for vacant possession of a property against a person or persons unknown who were in unlawful occupation of it.[1]
[1]Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Ltd v A Person or Persons Unknown Occupying a property at 15 Oakleigh Avenue, Takanini, HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-000086, 18 March 2010; on appeal A Person or Persons Unknown v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Ltd [2010] NZCA 211.
[2]        The second applicant has failed to establish that it represents any persons with rights in the property and has tendered submissions which are at best incoherent. No arguable ground of appeal meeting the criteria required for a grant of leave by this Court is disclosed in them.
[3]        We observe that, in so far as the appeal to the Court of Appeal purported to be by a person or persons unknown, it should not have been accepted for filing in that Court in the absence of some identification of those persons and, if necessary, a representation order. Nor should the second applicant have been permitted to intervene without establishing its standing to do so. That said, we are in entire agreement with the substance of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Solicitors:
Sanderson Weir, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The respondents in the original matter were persons unknown, who were in unlawful occupation of a property, and Ngai-Tupango-Haapu Inc, who sought to intervene in the proceedings. The applicant in the current appeal was Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Limited, the owner of the property. The dispute centered on an order for vacant possession of the property, which the High Court had granted against the unknown occupiers.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the second applicant, Ngai-Tupango-Haapu Inc, had established that it represented any persons with rights in the property, and whether the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a stay of the judgment met the criteria for a grant of leave by the Supreme Court. The court had to consider the standing of the second applicant, as well as the coherence of its submissions and the arguability of the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court also had to consider whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal should have been accepted for filing and whether the second applicant should have been permitted to intervene without establishing its standing to do so.

The Supreme Court found that the second applicant had failed to establish that it represented any persons with rights in the property and had tendered submissions that were at best incoherent. The court concluded that no arguable ground of appeal meeting the criteria required for a grant of leave by this Court was disclosed in the submissions. The Supreme Court agreed with the substance of the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs of $2,500 to be paid by the second applicant to the respondent.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and held that the second applicant had not established its standing to intervene in the proceedings. The court also found that the appeal to the Court of Appeal should not have been accepted for filing in the absence of some identification of the unknown occupiers and, if necessary, a representation order. The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the importance of establishing standing and ensuring that appeals are properly filed and argued.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established