Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited v Taylor

[2013] NZHC 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV2012-419-000869 [2013] NZHC 882

BETWEEN  PEPPER NEW ZEALAND (CUSTODIANS) LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDMAREE RAWINIA TAYLOR First Defendant

ANDRAWINIA AIMEE DAVIES Second Defendant

ANDMAREE RAWINIA TAYLOR AND RAWINIA AIMEE DAVIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE NEW BEGINNINGS TRUST

Third Defendants

Hearing:         (On the papers)

Counsel:         Z G Kennedy for the Plaintiff

First Defendant in Person
No Papers filed by Second and Third Defendants

Judgment:      24 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 24 April 2013 at 4.30 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

PEPPER NEW ZEALAND (CUSTODIANS) LIMITED V TAYLOR & ORS HC HAM CIV 2012-419-000869 [24 April 2013]

[1]      In   July   2012,   Pepper   New Zealand   (Custodians)   Limited   (“Pepper”), commenced proceedings by way of summary judgment against Ms Taylor, in relation to a property situated at 68 Raglan Road, Kawhia.   They proceeded to a hearing before Associate Judge Christiansen on 15 October 2012.   He made an order in favour of Pepper granting it judgment in the sum of $112,710.41, and directing Ms Taylor and the other defendants to provide and yield up vacant possession of the property.  He also made a declaration that Pepper is entitled to interest on the sum of

$99,823.51 at 10.7 percent from 15 October 2012 until the date of payment.

[2]      I have today received an interlocutory application for an interim injunction. It is not clear whether or not the application has been made on notice.  I suspect that it has not been made on notice.  In a supporting affidavit, Ms Taylor says that the property was advertised for sale by auction on Thursday, 28 March 2013, but that the auction did not go ahead.  The property was subsequently put up for tender, but the tender period closed on 12 April 2013, without a sale being made.  Apparently, the property is now available for sale, at a price of $109,000.

[3]      The  application  for  an  interim  injunction  is  declined,  inter  alia,  for  the following reasons:

(a)      No arguable case is made out by Ms Taylor.  The high point of her argument appears to be that she has appealed to “a higher Court”.  She says in her affidavit that her case was heard on the marae by the Māori Committee  Court,  on  10  March  and  15  April  2013,  at Mokonuirangi  Marae,  Utakura,  Hokianga,  and  Mangmuka  Marae. She asserts that the Māori Committee Court’s jurisdiction is paramount,  and  supersedes  Parliament,  and  all  Courts,  from  the District Court through to the Supreme Court.  Clearly, this argument is untenable.

(b)There has been no proper challenge to Associate Judge Christiansen’s orders.   The time within which they could have been appealed has now well and truly expired.

(c)      Ms Taylor does not offer any information to support her undertaking as to damages which she has proffered to the Court.   Given the background to this matter, it seems inherently unlikely that Ms Taylor would be able to satisfy any damages which might accrue were an interim injunction to be granted.

[4]      The  balance  of  convenience  does  not  favour  the  grant  of  an  interim injunction, and the same is declined.

Wylie J