Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata - [2021] NZHC 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2019-441-000018

[2021] NZHC 739

BETWEEN
MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST

Plaintiff

AND

WI HUATA AND DONNA HUATA

Defendants

AND

P C RAIKES LIMITED

Interested Party

On the Papers

Counsel:

L A Foley for the Plaintiff

D O’Connor for the Defendants and the Interested Party

Judgment:

1 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

(Costs)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff seeks costs in respect of an application for a stay that was withdrawn by the defendant on 2 March 2021 after a hearing on 9 February. The defendants say that costs on the stay application should either lie where they fall or be reserved.

Background

[2] The application for a stay of the High Court proceeding was made on the basis that there were extant proceedings in the Māori Land Court concerning the same parties and the same issues, and that the proceeding should be managed in one court,

MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST v HUATA [2021] NZHC 739 [1 April 2021]

the Māori Land Court. It was also said by the defendants that the plaintiff had failed to comply with directions made by the Māori Land Court.

[3] After the High Court hearing of the stay application, Judge Harvey issued a judgment on 17 February on whether the proceedings in the Māori Land Court should be transferred.1 He concluded that:2
In summary, it is inefficient and a duplication of resources for proceedings concerning the same land and effectively the same parties to be heard in two separate Courts…

[4]And:3

In any event, in the absence of submissions from Mr O’Connor, considering all the background to these and related proceedings, I am persuaded that it would be more efficient if all matters at issue between the parties were heard before one Court and in a forum where matters of jurisdiction were not at issue. That said, it is concerning that there has been no response from Mr O’Connor. Despite the delays that have occurred to date and given the importance of notice and the opportunity to reply, Mr O’Connor will have two weeks to file any further submissions on the law. But if there is no response from Mr O’Connor or his clients then the application to transfer will be granted.

[5] Judge Harvey adjourned the application for two weeks to enable counsel to file any further submissions on the law and said if Mr O’Connor did not file any submissions within that timeframe, and in the absence of any requests for a further adjournment that are granted, the application to transfer proceedings to the High Court will be granted.4

[6] On 2 March the defendants withdrew their stay application in the High Court and consented to all live proceedings currently before the Māori Land Court being determined by the High Court.

1 Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust (2021) 87 Tākitimu MB 251 (87 TKT 251).
2 At [18].
3 At [20].
4 At [21] and [22].

Submissions

[7] 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 Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata 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: [2021] NZHC 739
Decision Date: 1 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata, the plaintiff sought costs from the defendants in relation to an application for a stay that was subsequently withdrawn. The application for a stay was made on the basis that there were existing proceedings in the Māori Land Court concerning the same parties and issues, and it was argued that the proceedings should be managed in one court. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' stay application was unsuccessful and, therefore, the defendants should pay costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the general principle of costs following failure of an interlocutory application should apply, and if so, whether the defendants had succeeded in their application. The court found that the defendants did not succeed in their application, as they wanted the matters to be resolved in one court, but that court was the Māori Land Court, whereas the High Court was the more appropriate forum due to issues of jurisdiction.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $7,328 on a 2B basis, together with disbursements of $1,150.92. The court held that the general principle in rule 14.2(1)(a) is that the party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds, and there was no reason to depart from that general principle in this case.

Orders