Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata
[2021] NZHC 739
•1 April 2021
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[1] The plaintiff seeks costs in respect of an application for a stay that was withdrawn by the defendant on 2 March 2021 after a hearing on 9 February.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 defendants say both parties were successful, as the proceedings will now be heard in one forum. They say that the plaintiff contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding or a step in it by filing two proceedings in two different courts. And, the defendants submit the Court should decline costs as the proceedings have now been simplified in the most efficient way for all parties. This was not an easy task and:
… was only achieved by the defendants bringing the application for a temporary stay which then resulted in the plaintiff applying to transfer the proceedings in the Maori Land Court to the High Court and the parties agreeing to transfer all matters so that all issues can be heard in one forum.
[8] The defendants further say that the temporary stay was not misconceived, as suggested by the plaintiff.
[9] The plaintiff notes the Court has jurisdiction to award costs in respect of a withdrawn application.5 The withdrawal is effectively a concession that their position was correct, and costs on a 2B basis should be awarded on the basis that they have been successful.
[10] The plaintiff notes that the defendants were repeatedly advised as to their position – that the claims should be heard in one jurisdiction, and that that jurisdiction could only be the High Court – yet chose to proceed to a hearing of their stay application.6
Discussion
[11] The general principle in r 14.2(1)(a) is that the party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds.7 In this case, I see no reason to depart from that general principle.
5 Citing Winton v Winton [2018] NZHC 486.
6 The plaintiff sets out the six occasions in which the defendants were notified of their position.
7 See also r 14.8(1).
[12] I do not consider the defendants succeeded in their application. While they wanted the matters to be resolved in one court, they wanted that court to be the Māori Land Court. Equally, the land in question is General Land. There are issues of jurisdiction at play that mean the High Court is the more appropriate forum.8 The merits of the stay application must be assessed in this context.
Result
[13] The plaintiff is entitled to costs of $7,328 calculated on a 2B basis in accordance with the table at para [5] of counsel for the plaintiff’s costs memorandum of 8 March 2021, together with disbursements of $1,150.92.
Isac J
Solicitors:
Lunn & Associated Ltd, Napier Le Pine & Co, Taupo
8 See Huata v Mangaroa 26N2 Trust (2021), above n 1, at [16] where Judge Harvey also recognised the complication that the land in question is General Land.