Hill v Māori Trustee - [2016] NZHC 2074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-497 [2016] NZHC 2074

BETWEEN
FREDRICK PIRIPI KINGI HILL

Applicant

AND

MĀORI TRUSTEE First Respondent

LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND

Second Respondent

Hearing: 15 August 2016

Appearances:

F Hill in person
C Reuhman for the first respondent
No appearance for the second respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

[1] Mr Hill applies under s 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952 (the Act) for an order that caveat no. 9887823.1 (the caveat) registered by him on the title to a block of land known as Mangatainoka 1BC 2B3 (the Land) not lapse. The registered proprietor of the Land is the Māori Trustee as responsible trustee representing the interests of some 96 owners. Mr Hill is not one of those owners, but he has been occupying the Land.

[2] Mr Hill’s application was first called in this Court on 26 July 2016. A notice of opposition had been filed by the Māori Trustee, and Ms Reuhman appeared for the Māori Trustee that day. But there was no appearance by Mr Hill. He had earlier been in touch with the registrar by email, saying that he assumed no attendance would be required but that he would be on standby, to participate by conference call,
if the matter required a hearing. The notice of the hearing sent to Mr Hill did

HILL v MĀORI TRUSTEE [2016] NZHC 2074 [2 September 2016]

describe the 26 July 2016 date as a “Mention Only” hearing, and I considered that he might not have understood that he needed to be present. I adjourned the hearing to
10.00am on 27 July 2016, and made an interim order that the caveat not lapse, pending further order of the Court.

[3] Mr Hill did not appear when the case was called again on 27 July 2016. However he provided a written submission asking for an adjournment. He explained that he had left voicemail messages with the registrar about the 26 July hearing and had not received any response. He said that he was travelling north to Hamilton, and would not be able to appear at the 27 July hearing.

[4] Ms Reuhman opposed any further adjournment, but to avoid any risk of injustice to Mr Hill I further adjourned the hearing to 15 August 2016. The interim order that the caveat not lapse was to remain in place in the meantime.

Background

[5] The Māori Trustee leased the Land to Mr Hill by unregistered memorandum of lease dated 17 May 2007 (the Lease). There have been ongoing and substantial disputes between the Māori Trustee and Mr Hill since then. Mr Hill did not pay rent for long periods, and eventually the Māori Trustee obtained judgment against him in the District Court at Palmerston North for the unpaid rent. The District Court
judgment, dated 23 February 2015, included an order for cancellation of the Lease.1

[6] Mr Hill filed an appeal to the High Court, contending (amongst other things)

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 Hill v Māori Trustee

Details

AGLC: Hill v Māori Trustee [2016] NZHC 2074
Case: [2016] NZHC 2074
Decision Date: 2 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fredrick Piripi Kingi Hill sought to have a caveat he had lodged against a block of land remain in place. The land is owned by 96 people, represented by the Māori Trustee. Mr Hill was the lessee of the land until the District Court cancelled the lease in February 2015. Mr Hill’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. The Māori Trustee applied to the District Land Registrar under section 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952 for the caveat to lapse. Mr Hill applied for an order that the caveat not lapse. The Māori Trustee opposed the application. Mr Hill’s application was dismissed. The Court held that Mr Hill had no reasonable argument that he still had an equitable interest in the land. The lease had expired. There was no evidence that Mr Hill had entered into an oral agreement to lease the land. The discussions Mr Hill had had with the beneficial owners had not conferred on him any new equitable or other interest in the land. The Court held there was no merit in Mr Hill’s arguments that the lease was entered into unlawfully. The caveat lapsed. The Māori Trustee was entitled to costs.

Orders