Attorney-General v Ririnui - [2015] NZCA 173

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA336/2014
[2015] NZCA 173

BETWEEN	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant
AND	MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI Respondent

CA337/2014
BETWEEN	LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED Appellant
AND	MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI Respondent

CA29/2015
BETWEEN	LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED Appellant
AND	MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI Respondent

Hearing:	10 February 2015
Court:	Harrison, Stevens and French JJ
Counsel:	J R Gough for the Attorney-General S A Barker for Landcorp Farming Ltd A N Isac for Mita Ririnui
Judgment:	14 May 2015 at 2.45 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for interim orders pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court or pending a determination of the Supreme Court of an application for interim orders is dismissed.
BThere is no orders for costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

On 12 May 2015 this Court dismissed a cross-appeal by the respondent, Mita Ririnui,[1] against a judgment given in the High Court at Wellington.[2] The High Court had dismissed Mr Ririnui’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the appellant, Landcorp, on the ground that it was vitiated by bad faith. This Court also allowed appeals by the Crown and Landcorp against interim orders earlier made by the High Court in the same proceeding.[3]
[1]Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160.
[2]Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 3402.
[3]Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 1128.
On 13 May 2015 Mr Ririnui filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s decision.
Mr Ririnui challenges an agreement entered into by Landcorp on 5 March 2014 to sell to Micro Farms Ltd a dairy farm at Whārere, Bay of Plenty for $19 million. The sale was originally due for settlement on 30 May 2014. However, that date was extended twice by the High Court. As a result of this Court’s decision the order for stay has now been set aside.
Mr Ririnui has applied to this Court for an interim order restraining settlement of the sale (a) pending the Supreme Court’s determination of his application for leave to appeal or (b) until determination by the Supreme Court of an application for interim orders. Landcorp opposes the application. The Crown abides the order of the Court.
Both Mr Isac for Mr Ririnui and Mr Barker for Landcorp have filed memoranda and made oral submissions. We have been required to determine the application urgently given Mr Barker’s advice that Landcorp intends to settle the sale as soon as possible after 4 pm today unless restrained by a formal order.

Principles

It is well settled that the object of an interim order pending an appeal is to do justice between the parties whatever may be the result of the appeal.[4] As Mr Isac submits, this exercise requires a careful weighing or balancing of the factors between the right of a successful litigant to the fruits of a judgment and the need to preserve a position against…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Attorney-General v Ririnui

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 173
Case: [2015] NZCA 173
Decision Date: 14 May 2015 at 2.45 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an appeal by the Attorney-General and Landcorp Farming Limited against the decision of the High Court in the matter of Mita Michael Ririnui. The dispute centred on an agreement to sell a dairy farm at Whārere, Bay of Plenty, and whether the sale should be set aside on grounds of bad faith by Landcorp. Mita Ririnui sought to appeal the High Court's dismissal of his application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether interim orders should be made to prevent the sale from proceeding while the Supreme Court considered Mita Ririnui's application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included the balance between allowing a party to enjoy the fruits of a judgment and preserving the position against the contingency of a successful appeal. Factors to consider included the potential for the appeal to be rendered nugatory, the good faith of Mita Ririnui, the adverse effects on Landcorp and Micro Farms Ltd if the sale proceeded, the impact on third parties, the novelty and importance of the questions involved, any public interest in the proceeding, and the overall balance of convenience. The Court had to weigh these factors to determine if an interim order was warranted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mita Ririnui's application for interim orders. They found that while Mita Ririnui's rights of appeal might be rendered nugatory if the sale proceeded, Landcorp would be free to enter into a new agreement if the current one was set aside. They also found that both Landcorp and Micro would be adversely affected by an interim order, with Landcorp having already incurred losses and Micro facing potential cancellation of the sale. The Court emphasised that the merits of the case, particularly the finding that Landcorp had not acted in bad faith, were significant. They concluded that the factors against granting a stay outweighed those in favour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mita Ririnui's application for interim orders, and there will be no order as to costs.

Orders