Tan v Siope HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-2543

[2010] NZHC 1060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-2543

BETWEEN  ZHAO CHENG TAN First Plaintiff

AND  YUFAN LIANG Second Plaintiff

ANDSILAS RICHARD SIOPE First Defendant

ANDROBERT AUGUSTINE NAUER Second Defendant

ANDHAZEL RAPAI NAUER Third Defendant

ANDPHILIP NAUER Fourth Defendant

Hearing:         15 June 2010

Appearances: Mr Judd for plaintiffs

Mr Robert Nauer (second defendant in person) Judgment:     15 June 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE

Solicitors:

Mr S R Judd, P O Box 3320, Auckland - by email: [email protected]

Mr R A Nauer, 77 Universal Drive, Henderson

TAN AND ANOR V  SIOPE AND ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-2543  15 June 2010

[1]      No notice of opposition complying with the Rules has been filed.  Mr Nauer drew my attention to certain papers which have been produced which he says are to be connected with a hearing into this matter conducted by the hapu mate of counsel. Essentially the papers to which Mr Nauer has referred set out that the defendants do not recognise the jurisdiction of this Court over the land and the tangata whenua who, he says, own the land.   This is a not unfamiliar challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction which has come before the Court on a number of occasions.  On each occasion it has been rejected.   I intend to follow the same approach.   There is no merit to the submission that the Court does not have jurisdiction.  There having been no valid notice of opposition filed and the proceedings having been served, the status of the plaintiff’s claim is effectively that of undefended proceeding.   The plaintiff will now be permitted to proceed.

[2]      The plaintiff has produced as part of the evidence the Certificate of Title relating to the property which is marked as identifier NA16 C/1248 North Auckland Land Registration District.  It is that property that the plaintiffs seek possession of under an agreement for sale and purchase.  The land which that title relates to is the land  which  the  vendor  had  title  to  as  established  in  the  summary  judgment application and affidavit in support.  That being so there is the necessary chain of entitlement to enable the plaintiff to bring this action.  I do not accept that the title which I have been referring to has been extinguished as Mr Nauer has submitted to me and been replaced by an underlying native title.  The Register is conclusive and

there is no evidence to the contrary.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge