Hill v Māori Trustee

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, but said that he was in the process of negotiating with a fresh lease with the beneficial shareholders. There were real complexities in shifting bloodstock, in particular thoroughbreds, in the meantime.
Ms Reuhman (for the Māori Trustee) submitted that given that the lease had expired, Mr Hill had no entitlement to be on the land anyway. The only person with power to grant a new lease was her client. The Māori Land Court had refused to order a meeting of beneficial owners of the land, despite application by Mr Hill.

Analysis

This is a clear case. No error in Dobson J’s decision to refuse stay of enforcement in the High Court on 13 May was demonstrated. Nor is any miscarriage of justice likely if a stay is denied. The matters Mr Hill points to are questions of convenience only.
Mr Hill lacks any present tenure in the land. He is in law a trespasser. He may have hopes of renegotiating a new lease, but he will have to deal with the MāoriTrustee. The prospects of renegotiation between these parties appear slight indeed. Review of the judgments below indicate that any prospects of success on the substantive appeal are slim, in the event leave to appeal is granted. As to enforcement of the money judgment, Mr Hill has not tendered payment of the amount due, or any sum. Nor is any injustice likely to result from enforcement of it. The Māori Trustee is a substantial entity. It is well able to repay the judgment sum and costs in the event Mr Hill’s appeal is both permitted and allowed.

Result

The appeal and application for stay are dismissed.
Mr Hill is to pay the Māori Trustee’s costs for a standard application on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established