Hill v Māori Trustee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-39 [2016] NZHC 364

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

Hearing:	22 February 2016
Appearances:	Appellant in person C Reuhman for respondent
Judgment:	4 March 2016

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 364 [4 March 2016]

Contents

The context of the appeal .................................................................................................................. [1] Process criticisms............................................................................................................................. [21]

Not recognising a “case of doubt” requiring directions .............................................................. [23] A simplified trial should not have been directed .......................................................................... [27] Any consent to the process was conditional on trial by jury ........................................................ [30] Inadequate time for Mr Hill’s counterclaim ................................................................................. [34]

Absence of specific hearing date precluded Mr Hill from summonsing Attorney-General and others

...................................................................................................................................................... [37]

Substantive criticisms ..................................................................................................................... [40] The Court failed to acknowledge Mr Hill’s two distinct personalities ......................................... [41] Lease not enforceable? ................................................................................................................. [52] Māori Trustee in breach of fiduciary obligations owed to Mr Hill?............................................. [56] A misrepresentation? .................................................................................................................... [58] Lease not enforceable because of refusal to arbitrate? ................................................................ [59] Amounts claimed for commission overstated and rates not payable? .......................................... [63] Mr Hill’s counterclaim.................................................................................................................. [70]

Result ................................................................................................................................................ [76] Costs ................................................................................................................................................. [78]

The context of the appeal

[1]      The  appellant  (Mr Hill)  was  the  lessee  from  the  respondent  (the  Māori

Trustee) of a rural property in Mangatainoka (the property) for a nine year term from

11 December 2006.  The primary component of this proceeding is an appeal from a District Court judgment that found Mr Hill liable for breaches of the lease and ordered the lease to be cancelled.

[2]      In proceedings commenced in the Palmerston North District Court in 2011, the  Māori  Trustee  brought  claims  totalling  some  $87,000  for  unpaid  rent  and regional and district council rates and penalties, the cost of issuing a Property Law Act notice and the costs of gorse control on the property.  Mr Hill counterclaimed, initially for $16,000 for the costs of effecting work on the property.

[3]      After  what  Judge  Ross  described  as  “a  tortuous  passage  over  preceding years”, on 1 October 2014 he allocated a fixture for the proceeding and directed that it  was  to  proceed  by  way  of  a  simplified  trial.    Mr Hill  was  not  at  the  case management conference on 1 October 2014, and subsequently claimed that he did not receive timely notice of the conference.

[4]      At the end of a one day…