Jackson v Te Rangi - [2015] NZHC 1149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004604 [2015] NZHC 1149

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF

a decision under Clause 6 of Schedule 2 of the Local (Auckland Council) Act 2009

BETWEEN

WILLIAM WAKATERE JACKSON Applicant

AND

TAME TE RANGI; DAVID TAIPARI; THOMAS DE THIERRY;

MICHAEL BAKER; JOHN LINSTEAD; TED NGATAKI, GARY THOMPSON; TERRENCE LESLIE HOHNECK;

TE WARENA TAUA; NICOLA MACDONALD; LIANNE NGAMANE;

WILLIAM PETERS; KAREN WILSON; JOSIE SMITH; NAIDA GLAVISH; GRANT PAKIHANA HAWKE; AND HAYDEN EDMONDS

First Respondents

Respondents continued over

Hearing: 21 May 2015

Counsel:

P F Majury and P R H Mason for the Applicants
[First Respondents in Judicial Review Proceeding]

T K T A R Williams and I F F Peters for the Respondent, W W Jackson

Judgment:

27 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 27 May 2015 at 1.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

JACKSON v TE RANGI and ORS [2015] NZHC 1149 [27 May 2015]

THE INDEPENDENT MAORI STATUTORY BOARD
Second Respondent

TONY KAKE Third Respondent

MINISTER OF MAORI AFFAIRS Fourth Respondent

Solicitors: Atkins Holm Majurey, Auckland
Wackrow Williams and Davies Limited, Auckland

Copies To: Buddle Findlay, Wellington
Crown Law, Wellington

[1] On 21 November 2014, I delivered a judgment in this proceeding in which I found that the appointment of the third respondent, Tony Kake, as a mataawaka representative to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (“IMSB”)1 was made contrary to proper procedural process and, therefore, unlawful.2 I allowed the application for judicial review; set aside the decision appointing Mr Kake; and
directed that the decision appointing a mataawaka representative to the IMSB be made again in accordance with the law as I had found it to be.

[2] The first respondents in this proceeding are the persons who were members of the selection body responsible for appointing Mr Kake.3 Some of those persons have appealed that judgment.4 They now apply for a stay of execution of the orders that I made. The applicant in this proceeding, William Jackson, opposes the stay application.

[3] The relief that I granted was two-fold:

(a) I set aside Mr Kake’s appointment; and

(b)I directed that the decision appointing a mataawaka representative to the IMSB was to be made in accordance with the law as I had found it to be.

[4] I consider that it is better to look at the relief in two discrete parts.

[5] It was common ground that in bringing the appeal, the first respondents have acted in good faith and taken all steps to prosecute the appeal in a timely fashion. They have done all that they can, and all that remains to be done is for the Court of Appeal to allocate a hearing date. The first respondents have made informal enquiries of the Court of Appeal Registry and have been advised that the hearing is likely to be in the latter part of this year.…

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 Jackson v Te Rangi

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Te Rangi [2015] NZHC 1149
Case: [2015] NZHC 1149
Decision Date: 27 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case Jackson v Te Rangi [2015] NZHC 1149 was heard. The applicant, William Wakatere Jackson, sought judicial review of a decision by the first respondents, who were members of a selection body responsible for appointing a mataawaka representative to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB). The primary legal issue was whether the appointment of Tony Kake as a mataawaka representative was lawful. The court found that the appointment was made contrary to proper procedural process and, therefore, unlawful. The relief granted was twofold: the setting aside of Mr Kake's appointment and the direction that the decision appointing a mataawaka representative to the IMSB be made again in accordance with the law. The first respondents appealed the decision and applied for a stay of execution of the orders made by the court. The applicant opposed the stay application. The court considered that it would not be reasonable to require the first respondents to go through the statutory process for appointing a mataawaka representative to the IMSB before the Court of Appeal determined the appeal. The court decided to defer any appointment until the appeal was determined but did not reinstate Mr Kake as a mataawaka representative to the IMSB. The court's jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution was discussed, and it was found that there was no jurisdiction to grant a stay in relation to a judgment or part of a judgment that was non-executory. The court held that the balance of the judgment was non-executory, and therefore, there was no jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution. However, the court found that it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief under rule 12(3)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, even if the balance of the judgment was non-executory. The court considered that the balance of convenience strongly favoured granting interim relief, and it would be contrary to the public interest if a fresh appointment were to be made between now and the determination of the appeal when there was the potential for it to be reversed. The court granted interim relief restraining the first respondents from making an appointment of a mataawaka representative to fill the office formerly occupied by Mr Kake until the appeal was determined by the Court of Appeal or until further order of the court, whichever was sooner. The balance of the first respondents' application for a stay of execution was dismissed.

Orders