Maori Trustee v Hill - [2019] NZHC 2250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2016-454-85

[2019] NZHC 2250

BETWEEN
MĀORI TRUSTEE

Judgment creditor

AND

FREDRICK PIRIPI KINGI HILL

Judgment debtor

Hearing: 5 September 2019

Appearances:

C Reuhman for judgment creditor Judgment debtor in person

Judgment:

10 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 September 2019 at 11.00am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

[1] After nearly five years of litigation between the judgment creditor, the Māori Trustee, and the judgment debtor, Mr Fredrick Hill, before the Court for determination is the Māori Trustee’s application for an order adjudicating Mr Hill bankrupt.

[2] Following a defended hearing in the District Court at Palmerston North, Judge Ross delivered a judgment dated 23 February 2015 in which the Judge:1

1 Māori Trustee v Hill DC Palmerston North CIV-2011-054-533, 23 February 2015.

MĀORI TRUSTEE v HILL [2019] NZHC 2250 [10 September 2019]

(a)made an order terminating a lease between the Māori Trustee as lessor and Mr Hill as lessee of a block of land in Mangatainoka;

(b)made a supplementary order granting the Māori Trustee possession of the land; and

(c)awarded the Māori Trustee damages in the sum of $87,423.33.

[3] That judgment was based on certain premises, most obviously that the Māori Trustee as the registered owner of the land was entitled to deal with it.

[4]The Māori Trustee’s status as such is disputed by Mr Hill.

[5] The lapse in time between the District Court judgment of 23 February 2015 and this hearing is explained by ongoing litigation between the parties. Focussing on litigation that relates directly to the matter before the Court today, and therefore ignoring collateral litigation initiated by Mr Hill in various courts:

(a)Mr Hill sought a retrial of the proceeding in the District Court. His application was dismissed by Judge Bouchier in a judgment dated 10 June 2015.2

(b)Mr Hill appealed from the District Court’s substantive judgment to this Court. His appeal was dismissed by Dobson J in a judgment dated 4 March 2016.3 This was a comprehensive judgment that addressed all of Mr Hill’s arguments, whether or not they had been argued in the court below.

(c)On 29 October 2016, the Māori Trustee served a bankruptcy notice based on the District Court judgment. On 11 November 2016, Mr Hill filed and served an application for an order setting the bankruptcy notice aside. Mr Hill’s application was heard on 7 April 2017.

2 Māori Trustee v Hill [2015] NZDC 10506.
3 Hill v Māori Trustee [2016] NZHC 364.

Associate Judge Smith dismissed that application in a judgment dated 29 September 2017.4 This too was a comprehensive judgment that addressed the same arguments.

(d)Mr Hill appealed from Associate Judge Smith’s judgment to the Court of Appeal. On 24 June 2019, the Court of Appeal struck Mr Hill’s appeal out on procedural grounds.5

(e)Mr Hill applied to the Court of Appeal for…

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 Maori Trustee v Hill

Details

AGLC: Maori Trustee v Hill [2019] NZHC 2250
Case: [2019] NZHC 2250
Decision Date: 10 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Māori Trustee, as the judgment creditor, and Fredrick Piripi Kingi Hill, as the judgment debtor, in a legal dispute that has been ongoing for nearly five years. The core issue before the High Court is whether the Māori Trustee can obtain an order declaring Mr Hill bankrupt, following a series of previous judgments that have already been determined. These prior judgments included a District Court decision that awarded the Māori Trustee damages, which Mr Hill unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal. The High Court's Associate Judge Johnston examines the legal arguments presented by Mr Hill, who seeks to challenge the validity of earlier court decisions and to avoid bankruptcy by claiming a cross-claim. The court finds that Mr Hill’s arguments have already been thoroughly considered and rejected in previous judgments, and that they cannot be revived through a cross-claim. Additionally, the court rules that section 414(1) of the Insolvency Act, which allows for the review or variation of court decisions, does not permit the re-litigation of settled issues. The court dismisses Mr Hill’s interlocutory application and grants the Māori Trustee’s application for bankruptcy, concluding that Mr Hill has failed to provide any valid grounds for objection.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolve around the validity and finality of prior court decisions, the scope of section 414(1) of the Insolvency Act, and the applicability of cross-claims in bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Mr Hill could challenge the earlier judgments on the basis of a cross-claim, and if the court could revisit those judgments under section 414(1). The court also had to consider whether Mr Hill's concerns about the personal consequences of bankruptcy were relevant to the decision to grant the Māori Trustee’s application.

Associate Judge Johnston meticulously examines the statutory provisions and previous case law to conclude that Mr Hill's arguments have already been addressed and rejected in previous judgments. The court holds that the earlier judgments are final and binding on the parties, and that section 414(1) does not provide a mechanism for reopening settled issues. The court dismisses Mr Hill's application and proceeds to grant the Māori Trustee’s application for bankruptcy, noting that Mr Hill's personal concerns about the consequences of bankruptcy do not constitute a legal objection. The court further orders that the Māori Trustee is entitled to her costs on a 2B basis, along with allowable disbursements.

Orders