Paraha v Dawson

[2022] NZHC 2294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2022-463-000038

[2022] NZHC 2294

IN THE MATTER

Of the land known as Kawerau A4 Block

BETWEEN

TE AHO PARAHA (also known as Sir Christian, Christian Crown, Christian Surnamecrown or Christian Aio) and DOREEN PARAHA

Applicants

AND

MARIA DAWSON, ROBERT FOX, PAORA PAATU HUNIA and NEWTON

THEODORE KAREKARE as trustees of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust

Respondents

Hearing:

(On the papers)

Counsel:

Applicants in Person

Natalie Coates and Angela Grant for the Respondents

Judgment

9 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2022 at 11:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 2294 [9 September 2022]

Background

[1]    The respondents, on behalf of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust (“the Trust”), obtained an injunction in the Maori Land Court restraining the applicants,  Te Aho Paraha (also known as Sir Christian, Christian Crown, Christian Surnamecrown or Christian Aio) and Doreen Paraha, from residing on the Trust’s land and ordering them to remove all objects and structures that they have taken onto and erected on the land.

[2]    The applicants applied  for  a  stay  of  enforcement  of  the  injunction.  On 16 June 2022, I issued a results judgment declining the application.1

[3]    On 20 June 2022, I issued a reasons judgment.2 I noted the Maori Land Court’s finding that the applicants had no legal right to occupy the Trust’s land.3 Yet the applicants had prevented the respondents from accessing their land for some time.4 Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, a miscarriage of justice would arise if the stay was granted.5

[4]    The applicants now apply for leave to appeal.6 The threshold for leave is high.7 The ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.8 Relevant considerations include whether the applicant can identify an arguable error or law or fact; whether that error is of general or public importance or otherwise of sufficient importance to the applicant; and whether the circumstances warrant incurring further delay.9

1      Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1420.

2      Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1443.

3 At [23].

4 At [24].

5 At [24].

6      Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56(3) provides that leave is required to appeal a decision of the High Court on an interlocutory application to the Court of Appeal. See Lange v Lange [2020] NZHC 3151 at [21] where Gault J noted that an application for a stay of enforcement under r 17.29 of the High Court Rules 2016 is an interlocutory application.

7      Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122 at [6(a)].

8      At [6(e)].

9      At [6(b)-(d)].

[5]    While I am conscious that I am being asked to review the correctness of my own decision,10 I am not satisfied that the applicants have pointed to an error of law or fact. The proposed appeal is not of general importance. Nor do the circumstances warrant incurring further delay. The respondents satisfied the Maori Land Court that the applicants were infringing upon their right to access their land. A grant of leave to appeal would only serve to prolong the process of rectifying that infringement.

[6]For those reasons, a grant of leave to appeal is not in the interests of justice.

Result

[7]The application for leave to appeal is declined.

Moore J

Solicitors:

Ms Coates, Rotorua Ms Grant, Rotorua

Copy to:
The Applicants

10     Lange v Lange [2020] NZHC 3151 at [29].