Hill v PTW Holdings Limited - [2024] NZCA 648

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA439/2024
[2024] NZCA 648

BETWEEN	KRISTY HIRIA HILL AND TAMA LORENCE HOVELL Applicants
AND	PTW HOLDINGS LIMITED First Respondent
AND	STEVE KHOV AND KIERAN JONES AS LIQUIDATORS OF TAKIMANO LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Second Respondents

Court:	Palmer and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person P J Muir and D P Hoskin for First Respondent J W McDougall and S B Mossman-Young for Second Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	10 December 2024 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is declined.
BThe application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.
CThe applicants must pay one set of costs to the first and second respondents for a standard application on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Palmer J)

What happened?

Ms Kristy Hill and Mr Tama Hovell, the applicants, are directors and shareholders of Takimano Ltd (Takimano), a company in liquidation which is represented by the second respondents. Takimano was a tenant on lands in Ōtāhuhu held by PTW Holdings Ltd (PTW), the first respondent. Takimano and PTW had a dispute regarding aspects of the rental of the land, which was resolved by arbitration on 8 June 2023. On 3 November 2023, the arbitral award was entered as a judgment in the High Court.
Ms Hill and Mr Hovell then applied to the Māori Land Court for a determination that the land is Māori land (but not as defined in s 4 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (the Act)), a determination that the land is held on constructive trust for Māori, and injunctive relief. On 20 July 2023, the Court determined that the land was general land, and not Māori land under the Act.[1] Accordingly, the Court lacked jurisdiction to either deal with the land or grant the injunctive relief sought and dismissed the application.[2]
[1]See Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 4 definition of “general land”.
[2]Hill v PTW Holdings Ltd (2023) 262 Taitokerau MB 140 (262 TTK 140) at [49], [53] and [67].
Some eight months later, the applicants filed an appeal in the Māori Appellate Court, which sought submissions regarding whether the Māori Land Court, and consequently the Māori Appellate Court, had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim.[3] The applicants stated the Māori Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal “because it is [their] position in tikanga that it does” and disputed the appropriateness of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.[4] On 24 April 2024, the Court dismissed the appeal on the basis it does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.[5] The time for appealing the decision to this Court expired on 23 May 2024. On 5 July 2024, the applicants sought an extension of time.

Submissions

[3]Hovell v PTW Holdings [2024] Māori Appellate Court MB 48 (2024 APPEAL 48) at [2].

[4]At [4].

[5]At [7].

In their proposed appeal, the…

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 PTW Holdings Limited 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: [2024] NZCA 648
Decision Date: 10 December 2024 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicants, Kristy Hiria Hill and Tama Lorence Hovell, sought an extension of time to appeal and a review of the Deputy Registrar's decision in a case against PTW Holdings Limited and the liquidators of Takimano Limited. The applicants, who are directors and shareholders of Takimano, a company in liquidation, were involved in a rental dispute with PTW Holdings, which was resolved through arbitration. Following the dismissal of their application in the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court, the applicants sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Their appeal raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court and the integrity of the Crown's system for land and resources in Aotearoa.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether to grant an extension of time for the applicants' appeal and whether to review the Deputy Registrar's decision to reject the interlocutory application for orders. The Court of Appeal considered the principles outlined in Almond v Read, focusing on the length and reasons for the delay, the conduct of the parties, any prejudice to the respondents, and the merit of the proposed appeal. The Court found that the applicants' delay was significant, their explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory, and their conduct had prejudiced the respondents. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicants' appeal appeared to lack merit, particularly in light of the clear jurisdictional limits of the Māori Land Court.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for an extension of time, stating that the cumulative delay in the proceedings was substantial, and the applicants' explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. The Court also declined the application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision, noting that the orders sought were not interlocutory in nature, and the Court did not have jurisdiction to grant them. The Court ordered the applicants to pay one set of costs to the first and second respondents for a standard application on a band A basis, along with usual disbursements.

Orders