Hill v Māori Trustee - [2016] NZHC 1847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-39 [2016] NZHC 1847

UNDER
the District Courts Act 1947, ss 72(1), 75,

76(1)(a), 76(1)(b)(i) and (ii), 76(1)(c), Bill of Exchange Act 1908, s 10(2), High

Court Rules 2005 r 7.55(1), District Court Rules 2009, Crimes Act 1961, Judicature Act 1908, Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14,

27, 28, 29, Animal Welfare Act, Magna Carta 1215, Human Rights Act 1993, Property Law Act 2007, Securities Act

1978, Personal Properties Act 1999, Interpretation Act 1979 and not limited to others supporting the intent of this application by appellant in accord with law or by lawful amendment

IN THE MATTER OF

judgment decision dated 23 February 2015 by District Court Palmerston North

CIV-2011-054-0533

BETWEEN

FREDERICK PIRIPI KINGI HILL Appellant

AND

MĀORI TRUSTEE Respondent

On papers

Judgment:

9 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J [Leave to appeal]

[1] In a judgment issued on 4 March 2016, I dismissed Mr Hill’s appeal from a

judgment of the District Court at Palmerston North delivered in February 2015.1

1 Hill v Māori Trustee [2016] NZHC 364.

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 1847 [9 August 2016]

[2] On 22 April 2016, Mr Hill filed in the Wellington Registry of this Court a first application for leave to further appeal to the Court of Appeal.2 No attempt was made in that document to identify any issue of sufficient importance to warrant the grant of leave for a second appeal.

[3] A second application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed on

27 April 2016. The document was dated by Mr Hill 10 March 2016, but there is no explanation for the delay between its dating and its filing, also in the Wellington Registry of the Court. That document is 16 pages long. It contains a critical commentary of single paragraphs or groups of paragraphs of a substantial part of my judgment, and foreshadows a re-running of the arguments, all of which I found to be entirely without merit.

[4] A third document, also filed with the Wellington Registry of the Court on

2 May 2016, sought a stay of the enforcement of my judgment. Apart from ending with the statement that the Court of Appeal “… is awaiting on the High Court to determine a leave to appeal application”, the document did not address grounds on which the Court might consider a grant of leave for a further appeal.

[5] The respondent has filed a succinct notice of opposition to the original application for leave to appeal, contesting that there are any special reasons for granting leave for a further appeal, and contending that my judgment fully canvassed and considered all of the appellant’s documents and arguments.

[6] Mr Hill has not sought a hearing on his application for leave to appeal. However, I am advised by the Registry of the Court of Appeal that there has been a call in that Court of his application for special leave.

[7] I…

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 Hill v Māori Trustee 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: [2016] NZHC 1847
Decision Date: 9 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frederick Piripi Kingi Hill sought leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court, which had dismissed his appeal from a District Court judgment. The original dispute was over the lease of a rural property, with the District Court finding that Mr Hill had breached the lease agreement. The High Court upheld the District Court's decision. The legal issue in this case was whether there were grounds to grant Mr Hill leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for a second time, after the High Court had already dismissed his appeal. The Court considered whether any of the arguments presented by Mr Hill were of sufficient importance to warrant a second appeal. The Court found that none of Mr Hill’s arguments raised issues of importance that would justify the Court of Appeal's consideration. In particular, the Court noted that Mr Hill's claims regarding his legal personality and jurisdiction were nonsensical and did not constitute valid grounds for appeal. The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed, as the issues raised were not of sufficient importance to warrant a second appeal.

Orders