Gregory v District Court at Hamilton - [2025] NZHC 861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2024-419-318

[2025] NZHC 861

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 for judicial review of a summary judgment

BETWEEN

REWI MANIAPOTO GREGORY

Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON

First Respondent

WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL

Second Respondent

Hearing: 6 March 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person (with Peter Martin, McKenzie Friend) C L Pidduck for Second Respondent

Judgment:

10 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April 2025 at 11.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
C Pidduck, Ngāruawāhia

Copy to: Applicant

GREGORY v THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON [2025] NZHC 861 [10 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Gregory applies for judicial review of a decision made by Judge AIM Tompkins to decline to stay or set aside a judgment entered in default against Mr Gregory for unpaid rates.1 The first respondent, the District Court at Hamilton, abides the decision of this Court. The second respondent, Waikato District Council, opposes the application.

Background

[2] Mr Gregory is the registered owner of a property situated at River Road, Ngāruawāhia. The property is freehold land. Waikato District Council is the territorial authority where the property is situated.

[3] On 11 October 2022, the Council obtained judgment by default against Mr Gregory pursuant to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (the Rating Act) for unpaid rates of $64,108.56 and costs of $1810.68, totalling $65,919.24. The Council has unsuccessfully sought to enforce the judgment, including by way of examination of Mr Gregory and through seizure of property. The judgment debt remains unpaid and the total outstanding rates on the property to this date (including the judgment debt) amounts to $165,251.54.

[4] In August 2024, Mr Gregory filed applications in the Hamilton District Court to stay the judgment in default or to have it set aside. Mr Gregory filed an affidavit in support.

[5] On 12 August 2024, Judge Tompkins declined the application due to “there being no substantive basis for such an application to be accepted by the Court”. The Judge made the decision in chambers without hearing from Mr Gregory or Waikato District Council.

[6]Mr Gregory now applies for judicial review of Judge Tompkins’ decision.

1 Waikato District Council v Gregory DC Hamilton CIV-2022-024-89, 12 August 2024.

[7]Mr Gregory advances the following grounds:

(a)Judge Tompkins failed to consider that the land is Māori customary land and should be exempt from rates.

(b)The Judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for the decision.

(c)Summary judgment was inappropriate as there was a defence.

(d)The decision ignored the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[8] Mr Gregory seeks an order quashing the judgment of Judge Tompkins, a declaration that there has been a breach of natural justice, and a rehearing.

[9] On 2 December 2024, the Council sought that the application for judicial review be struck out as failing to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gregory v District Court at Hamilton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 861
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this judicial review case, Rewi Maniapoto Gregory sought to challenge a decision by Judge AIM Tompkins to decline his applications to stay or set aside a default judgment entered against him for unpaid rates. The Waikato District Council opposed the application. Mr Gregory argued that the District Court judge had failed to consider that the land was Māori customary land and should be exempt from rates, had not provided sufficient reasons for his decision, and had ignored the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He sought an order quashing the judgment and a rehearing. The Waikato District Council argued that the land was fee simple freehold land and not Māori customary land. It also submitted that there was no breach of natural justice as Mr Gregory had not engaged in the rates proceeding in a timely manner.

The court considered three issues: whether the decision was unlawful because the judge declined the applications without hearing from Mr Gregory, whether the decision was unlawful because the judge failed to consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori customary land, and whether the decision was unlawful because the judge did not give reasons for his decision. The court found that while the judge should have heard from Mr Gregory before declining the applications, the outcome would not have differed had he done so. The decision was not unlawful on the basis that Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Māori customary land were not considered, as there was no evidence to support that the land was Māori customary land. While the judge's reasons could have been more fulsome, the court found that the lateness of the applications and the lack of engagement with the legitimate issues meant that the decision was not unlawful. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court's decision was that the default judgment against Mr Gregory would stand. The court provided a fully reasoned response to the issues raised by Mr Gregory in his applications to the District Court.

Orders