Nga Uri Whakatipuranga O Ngarae (Inc)

[2021] NZHC 3580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1829

[2021] NZHC 3580

BETWEEN

of NGA URI WHAKATIPURANGA O NGARAE (INC)

Applicant

Telephone conference:	15 December 2021
Participants:	K W Bluegum for the Applicant L Theron for Crown Law
Judgment:	21 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2021 at 2:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Recipients:

The Applicant, C/o Mr K W Bluegum

Ms L Theron, Crown Law Office, Wellington

RE NGA URI WHAKATIPURANGA O NGARAE (INC) [2021] NZHC 3580 [21 December 2021]

[1]                  Following my minute of 6 December 2021, I convened a telephone conference on 15 December 2021. Mr Kevin Wayne Bluegum (who seeks to be called Kevin) attended, together with Ms Theron for the Crown.

[2]                  As indicated in my earlier minute, this proceeding has been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 for consideration under     r 5.35B, which provides for the Court to make orders or give directions if a Judge is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. The four documents submitted to the registry are summarised in my earlier minute and need not be repeated here.

[3]                  The power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse under these rules is to be exercised sparingly. But it is appropriate when it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond, and when right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes for it to allow the applicant’s documents to be treated as proper documents.1

[4]                  I gave Kevin an opportunity to be heard in relation to the documents he had filed.2 In summary, he seeks a declaratory order from this Court that the Crown is unlawfully occupying the lands within the Native Waka District of Te Mata-Ote-Atua, and payment of over $21 billion from various named persons, including central and local government officials, judicial officers and non-government persons.

[5]There are at least four broad difficulties with the proceeding.

[6]                  First, Ms Theron referred to a series of earlier caveat decisions of this Court concluding that the named applicant, Nga Uri Whakatipurunga O Ngarae Inc, was not a legal entity.3 A search of the Incorporated Societies register indicates that remains the position.

1      Mathiesen (Trustees of Sweet Pea Family Trust) v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258; Mathiesen v Slevin

[2018] NZHC 1032; and Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2019] NZHC 2345.

2      See High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35B(3).

3      Nga Uri Whakatipurunga O Ngarae (Inc) v Marac Finance Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2008-404- 6180, 9 December 2008 at [19]-[20]; and Nga Uri Whakatipurunga O Ngarae (Inc) v Marac Finance Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-6180, 29 July 2009.

[7]                  Secondly, although the  registry  has  accepted  the  documents  for  filing,  the documents do not comply with the requirements of the High Court Rules 2016, including the formal requirements in Part 5 Sub-part 2 as to cover sheet and heading identifying every plaintiff and defendant. Indeed, there is no statement of claim at all, as required by r 5.25. Given these defects, the Registrar would have been entitled to reject the documents for filing. At the very least, a properly pleaded statement of claim would be required before any response could be expected. As Ms Theron submitted, it would be very difficult to respond to the documents filed.

[8]                  Thirdly, Kevin has clarified that the claim not only relies on unextinguished native or customary title but also seeks to make very large money claims against various named persons. Those persons are not named as defendants and there is no statement of claim, only generic references to theft, fraud, criminal acts (and various other alleged breaches) which appear premised on a challenge to the transfer of land to the Crown. There is no discernible cause of action against the named persons personally. It would be manifestly unfair to require the named persons to respond.

[9]                  Fourthly, Ms Theron also referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections where the Court stated:4

There have been a number of decisions of this Court in which it has been made clear that arguments based on an assertion that the New Zealand Parliament does not have power to make laws affecting some or all the persons living in New Zealand cannot succeed. All New Zealand Courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament …

[10]              The underlying premise in the claim appears to challenge the status of the Crown and Parliament in relation to the claimed lands. Insofar as it challenges Parliament, that is not something the Court can entertain.

[11]              For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. It should be struck out.

4      Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZCA 2 at [5].

Result

[12]The proceeding is struck out.

Gault J