Paraha v Dawson

[2022] NZHC 1420

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 1420

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:

16 June 2022

Appearances:

Applicants in Person

Natalie Coates and Angela Grant for the Respondents

Judgment

16 June 2022

[RESULTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2022 at 12:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date:

PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1420 [16 June 2022]

Introduction

[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. The order was transmitted to this Court for the purposes of enforcement.

[2]    The applicants were served a notice to vacate the land by the date of this judgment, 16 June 2022. They subsequently applied for a stay of enforcement of the injunction. A hearing was convened on an urgent basis. After hearing the parties’ submissions, I indicated that I would issue a results decision with reasons to follow. This judgment delivers the result.

Should the application for a stay be granted?

[3]I consider that the application for a stay should not be granted.

[4]    The applicants’ argument broadly proceeded on two grounds. The first is that the order requiring them to vacate the Trust’s land is in breach of tikanga and their customary rights because they are descendants of the original landowners and never ceded sovereignty of the land. This is effectively a challenge to the correctness of the Maori Land Court decision, which found that the applicants unlawfully entered onto and remained on land owned by the Trust.1 The proper avenue to challenge the merits of that decision would be to file an appeal, not to apply for a stay. No appeal against that decision has been filed and time period to do so has expired. In light of the Maori Land Court’s decision, I cannot accept that the Trust is not the lawful owner of the land.

[5]    The second ground is that the laws of New Zealand do not apply. While the application originally referred to particular rules of the High Court Rules 2016, the

1      Dawson v Crown – Kawerau A4 Block (2022) 272 Waiāriki MB 191 (272 WAR 191) at [33].

applicants submitted at the hearing that these laws did not apply. Reference was made to several documents, decrees and covenants. I am not aware of the meaning of these references.  Ultimately, I simply cannot accept as a proposition that the laws of   New Zealand do not apply.

[6]    In my view, it is not likely that a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if the judgment were enforced.

Result

[7]The application for a stay is declined.

[8]I will issue a judgment delivering my reasons for the decision in due course.

Moore J

Solicitors:

Ms Coates, Rotorua

Copy to:
The Applicants