Haggie v Haggie - [2006] NZSC 32

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 20/2006
[2006] NZSC 32

BETWEENMARLENE PATRICIA TE HIWI HAGGIE

Applicant

ANDPIKI TAWHAKI HAGGIE

Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Tipping and Anderson JJ
Counsel:R H Warren and D Dowthwaite for Applicant

D A Bogers and S K Nepe for Respondent

Judgment:10 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.THE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ITSELF ARE BOTH DISMISSED.

B.The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.00 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

REASONS
[1]       This is an application for leave to appeal to this Court directly from the Family Court. That Court made orders under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and, in so doing, held that certain land was general land owned by Maori rather than Maori land. The applicant, Mrs Haggie, challenged that and other aspects of the Family Court’s decision on an appeal to the High Court.
[2]       She also wishes to appeal directly to this Court on a number of grounds, including the proposition that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to make any determination of the status of the land. The High Court appeal, which presumably put the jurisdiction issue at its forefront, was initially held over pending the decision of this Court on the present application. It has, however, now been dismissed, as we mention more fully below.
[3]       The respondent contends that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to allow an application of this kind and, even if we had, that it should not be exercised. Section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides that the Supreme Court can hear and determine an appeal against a decision made in a civil proceeding in a New Zealand Court other than the Court of Appeal or the High Court, to the extent only that an enactment other than the Supreme Court Act provides for the bringing of an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
[4]       Mrs Haggie has not identified any statutory provision which provides for an appeal directly from the Family Court to the Supreme Court, nor are we aware of any such provision. We add that even if the applicant was seeking leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court to the same effect as that of the Family Court, it is unlikely the case would qualify for a leapfrog appeal, bypassing the Court of Appeal under s 14. If this present matter was discretionary, we would certainly not entertain the appeal without the benefit of the views of at least the High Court.
[5]       We have just learnt, following the filing on 4 May 2006 of an application for leave to amend the application for leave to appeal to this Court, that the High Court appeal was dismissed, effectively by consent, on 6 April 2006. The application to amend in this Court now seeks to put in…

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 Haggie v Haggie

Details

AGLC: Haggie v Haggie [2006] NZSC 32
Case: [2006] NZSC 32
Decision Date: 27 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haggie v Haggie, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to grant leave for an appeal from the Family Court's decision regarding the status of certain land under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Marlene Haggie, the applicant, sought to appeal the Family Court's determination that the land was general land owned by Maori rather than Maori land. Additionally, she argued that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of the land. The respondent, Piki Haggie, contended that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal directly from the Family Court.

The court examined whether there was any statutory provision allowing an appeal directly from the Family Court to the Supreme Court, as required by Section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The court found that no such provision existed, and even if the applicant had sought leave to appeal from the High Court, it would likely not qualify for a leapfrog appeal, bypassing the Court of Appeal under Section 14. Furthermore, the High Court appeal was dismissed, making the case for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court even weaker.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the application to amend it. The court ruled that there was no basis for the appeal, and even if amended, the application could not succeed. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements.

Orders