Hill v Māori Trustee - [2016] NZCA 380

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA220/2016
[2016] NZCA 380

BETWEEN	FREDERICK HILL Appellant
AND	MĀORI TRUSTEE Respondent

Hearing:	1 August 2016
Court:	Kós P, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person C M Reuhman for Respondent
Judgment:	9 August 2016 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal and application for stay are dismissed.

B Mr Hill is to pay the Māori Trustee’s costs for a standard application on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

Mr Hill was lessee from the Māori Trustee of farm land in Mangatainoka. The lease was for a nine year term commencing 11 December 2006. On 23 February 2015 District Court Judge Ross found Mr Hill liable for breaches of the lease.[1] He ordered the lease be cancelled. Special damages (for unpaid rent, rates and costs associated with gorse control) of $87,423 were awarded against Mr Hill, along with costs.
[1]Māori Trustee v Hill DC Palmerston North CIV-2011-054-533, 23 February 2015.
Mr Hill appealed to the High Court. In the meantime, the lease expired, on 11 December 2015. In a judgment dated 4 March 2016 Dobson J dismissed Mr Hill’s appeal.[2]
[2]Hill v MāoriTrustee [2016] NZHC 364.
On 2 May 2016 Mr Hill applied in the High Court for leave to bring a second appeal to this Court under s 67 of the Judicature Act 1908. That application is yet to be resolved.
An application to the High Court for stay pending leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed on 13 May 2016.[3]

Applications before this Court

[3]Hill v MāoriTrustee HC Palmerston North CIV-2015-454-39, 13 May 2016.

On 17 May 2016 Mr Hill filed two documents in this Court. The first is a “Notice of Appeal of Order” which in substance is an appeal against dismissal of the stay application on 13 May 2016 in the High Court. On the same day Mr Hill filed an “application for stay or injunction”, which relies on r 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
This Court has jurisdiction to deal with the second of these documents under r 12(3) and (5):
(3)Pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal or an appeal, the court appealed from or the Court may, on application,—
(a)order a stay of the proceeding in which the decision was given or a stay of the execution of the decision; or
(b) grant any interim relief.
…
(5)If the court appealed from refuses to make an order under subclause (3), the Court may, on application, make an order under that subclause.
This means the first document — the appeal against Dobson J’s refusal to grant a stay — is superfluous.[4] Nonetheless, we shall determine it alongside the application for stay.

Submissions

[4]Spackman v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2007] NZCA 463 at [6].

Mr Hill in oral submissions before us accepted that the lease had expired,…

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] NZCA 380
Decision Date: 9 August 2016 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hill v Māori Trustee, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal from the High Court's refusal to grant a stay of enforcement of a judgment against the appellant, Frederick Hill, in relation to a lease of farm land. The appellant had leased land from the respondent, the Māori Trustee, under a nine-year lease that expired on 11 December 2015. In February 2015, the District Court found the appellant liable for breaches of the lease and ordered the cancellation of the lease, awarding the respondent special damages and costs. The appellant appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal in March 2016. The appellant then sought a stay of enforcement of the judgment pending the resolution of a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether to grant a stay of enforcement and whether the appeal from the High Court's refusal to grant a stay should proceed.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant had demonstrated any error in the High Court's decision to refuse a stay and whether denying a stay would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court also had to consider whether the appellant had any present entitlement to the land and whether there was a likelihood of success in the substantive appeal. The Court of Appeal examined the grounds for the appeal and the potential consequences of denying a stay, including the financial capacity of the respondent to repay the judgment sum and costs if the appeal were successful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the application for a stay. The Court found no error in the High Court's decision to refuse a stay and concluded that denying a stay would not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the lease had expired, and the appellant was in the process of negotiating a new lease but had no present entitlement to the land. The Court also observed that the prospects of success on the substantive appeal were slim, and there was no likelihood of the respondent suffering any injustice if the judgment were enforced. The Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs for a standard application on a band A basis, along with usual disbursements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for stay, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders