Paraha v Dawson

[2022] NZHC 1737

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 1737

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

20 July 2022

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 July 2022 at 1:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1737 [20 July 2022]

Background

[1]                  On 16 June 2022, I declined the applicants’ application for a stay of enforcement of a Maori Land Court order restraining them from residing on the respondent trust’s land and ordering them to remove all objects and structures that they have taken onto and erected on the land.1

[2]                  I expressed my preliminary view that the respondents were entitled to costs having successfully defended the application, but reserved leave to file memoranda. Both parties now seek costs against each other.

Costs

[3]                  The applicants seek costs of $15,300. This is said to be their actual costs associated with the proceedings because the respondents (allegedly) stole property from them valued at that amount.

[4]                  The applicants adduced no evidence to support this allegation. Even so, a claim of that sort cannot be incorporated in the determination of costs on their application for a stay of enforcement. Any such claim would need to be the subject of separate proceedings seeking damages.

[5]                  There is no basis in law or fact to support the applicants’ claim in costs. They were wholly unsuccessful in their application. The principles that costs follow the event and the successful party is normally entitled to costs apply here.

[6]                  The respondents, on the other hand, were successful. They seek costs on a 2B basis of $1,195. They rely on Step 62 of sch 3 to the High Court Rules 2016, which provides for a half day allocation for “other enforcement process”. This figure does not exceed the respondents’ actual legal costs of $1,537.50 (excluding GST).

[7]                  Despite the fact that the application for a stay of enforcement was entirely meritless, it required opposition from the respondents including the preparation of

1      Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1420. See also Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1443 for my subsequent judgment delivering my reasons.

written submissions and an appearance at a hearing convened by way of telephone conference. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the quantum of costs claimed by the respondents is appropriate.

Result

[8]The applicants are to pay costs of $1,195 to the respondents.

Moore J

Solicitors:

Ms Coates, Rotorua Ms Grant, Rotorua

Copy to:
The Applicants