Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust - [2023] NZCA 338

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA106/2022
[2023] NZCA 338

BETWEEN	WI HUATA AND DONNA HUATA Appellants
AND	MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST Respondent

Hearing:	28 July 2023 (via teleconference)
Counsel:	C F J Reid for Appellants L A Foley for Respondent
Judgment:	31 July 2023 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J
[Re: application for stay]

AThe appellants’ application for a stay is declined.
BCosts on the application are reserved for consideration at the substantive hearing on 10 August 2023.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

At the conclusion of an oral hearing held by way of a telephone conference call on 28 July 2023, I advised counsel that I had decided the appellants’ application for a stay should be declined with costs reserved for consideration at the substantive hearing of the appeal. I also advised that I would provide reasons for my decision in writing. Those reasons now follow.

Background

The substantive appeal in this case was filed on 8 March 2022. It is an appeal against a High Court decision regarding general land leased by the appellants from the respondent an Ahu Whenua Trust constituted under the Māori Affairs Act 1953.[1] The land had been purchased by a Mrs Te Whare in 1909 and in 1974 the respondent was established to administer the land on behalf of her descendants.
[1]Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Wi Huata [2021] NZHC 113.
In the decision under appeal, the High Court granted the respondent a declaration that the appellants’ lease had expired in September 2019 and also granted the respondent an order for possession of the land.[2] In making those orders the Judge rejected the appellants’ defence that they had an enforceable option to purchase the land under an agreement to lease executed in 1999.[3]
[2]At [192].
[3]At [174] and [191].
A case on appeal was duly filed in this Court and on 10 August 2022 a fixture date of 5 July 2023 was allocated. The appellants’ submissions were required to be filed by 30 May 2023.
On 5 May 2023, the then counsel for the appellants, Ms Monteiro, sought leave to withdraw as counsel due to non-payment of fees. Leave was granted. Subsequently, in emails dated 17 and 18 May 2023, Mr Huata requested an adjournment of the hearing until September 2023.
In a direction dated 22 May 2023, Goddard J adjourned the hearing to 10 August 2023. His direction went on to say:
It would be contrary to the interests of justice for there to be any further delays in resolving this appeal. There will be no further adjournments, or extension[s] of time for filing documents, in the absence of truly exceptional circumstances wholly outside the control of the party seeking an adjournment or extension of time.
The appellants were required to file submissions on or before 13 July 2023.
The submissions were not filed by that date. Instead, the appellants’ new counsel Mr Reid filed an application for a stay of proceedings, together with…

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 Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust 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: [2023] NZCA 338
Decision Date: 31 July 2023 at 4 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an appeal from Wi Huata and Donna Huata against the Mangaroa 26N2 Trust. The dispute arose from a High Court decision regarding a lease of general land that the appellants had leased from the respondent, a trust established to administer land on behalf of descendants of Mrs Te Whare. The High Court had granted the respondent a declaration that the appellants' lease had expired in September 2019 and ordered possession of the land. The appellants' appeal challenged this decision, specifically the High Court's rejection of their defence that they had an enforceable option to purchase the land under a 1999 lease agreement.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellants' application for a stay of the proceedings should be granted. The appellants sought a stay pending the High Court's determination of a claim based on tikanga (traditional Māori law) which had not been raised or pleaded in the original High Court proceedings. The Court had to determine whether such a late invocation of a new claim warranted a stay and whether it would be just to allow further delay in the appeal process.

The Court of Appeal declined the appellants' application for a stay. The Court found that it would be unjust to allow further delay given the history of delays already occasioned by the appellants. The Court noted that the tikanga claim was vague, had not been previously raised or pleaded, and was advanced at the eleventh hour. The Court held that the respondent would be significantly prejudiced by any further delay. Additionally, the Court deemed it untenable to suggest that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice, especially given the appellants' previous attempts to delay proceedings. Consequently, the Court decided that the fairest course of action was to reserve costs on the stay application for consideration at the substantive hearing of the appeal.

The Court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appellants' application for a stay. Costs on the application were reserved for consideration at the substantive hearing scheduled for 10 August 2023.

Orders