Williams v Hauraki District Council

[2020] NZHC 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2020-419-000047

[2020] NZHC 381

BETWEEN

ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Applicant

AND

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS

Respondents

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	4 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 March 2020 at 1.30pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            Applicant

WILLIAMS v HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2020] NZHC 381 [4 March 2020]

[1]                  Anthony Williams has purported to file a number of documents with this Court at Hamilton. The Registrar has referred the documents to me in accordance with High Court Rule 5.35A.

[2]The documents purportedly filed are said to be:

(a)statement of claim on application for judicial review between Mr Williams, (apparently on behalf of Maukoro Marae Restoration and Development Trust) against the Hauraki District Council. Reference is also made, although it is not clear in what capacity to, the Office of Treaty Settlement and the Crown as respondents;

(b)in addition to the statement of claim a notice of proceeding form has been filed which refers to Minister Sage, Ms Anderson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Treaty Settlement and the Mayor of Hauraki District Council;

(c)an interlocutory injunction – application without notice; and

(d)an affidavit in support together with a number of annexures.

[3]                  It appears from the documents that the principal issue the applicant Mr Williams has is in relation to the ownership of the Patetonga Domain and its status as a Crown owned reserve managed by the Hauraki District Council. But it is not possible to discern from the documents that Mr Williams has filed exactly what the basis of his complaint is or the redress sought.

[4]                  The relief sought in the statement of claim is not relief that the Court could grant. The relief sought from the respondent(s) is:

a)   To cease and desist their action of wilful trespass that will cause injury to maukoro marae development

b)   To organise the Adhoc Authorities to seek proper consultation with Maukoro Marae Development Trust being the appointed body and Chair

person to represent the interests of ngä uri whakatupuranga o maukoro hapu whanau kotahitanga maori incorporations

c)   Adhoc Local Authorities to be instrumental to create clear communications between maukoro marae and its appointed managers

9) Ngä Uri Whakatapu O Maukoro Maori Incorporations want to open dialog remedy to negotiate the settling accounts with the respondents by the programs set in motion by te tiriti o waitangi 1840/1993/1995/2020 taonga tuku iho and to secure the future prosperity of those that travel to our shores for the purpose of trade in the reciprocation of benefit to all under te tiriti o waitangi.

[5]                  Further, the application without notice for interlocutory injunction is meaningless. It refers to seeking the following orders:

a.Acknowledge Fiducial Orders of The Crown Of England and The Crown of Maukoro conferred by and recognized by The Imperial Laws Applications Act … including but not limited to Te ture Whenua Maori Land Act …

b.Order defendants to [seise] all actions of threat against Maukoro Marae the Plaintiff as these threats shall be viewed as [wilfull] trespass conferred by the act/s19/s5/93 amended by s17/94 to the act/s19A/95/2020 specific s5/95/2020 Act to bind the Crown UK, its subjects and Ngä Uri Whakatupu O Maukoro Hapu Whanau Kotahitanga Maori Incorporation

c.Subject the defendants Adhoc Authorities to the protectorate laws imposed by tikanga maori laws imposed by the common law statutes of England, failure to do so shall impose s12/s79/93 amended by te ture maori incorporations constitution regulations act

/s12s79/95/2020.

[6]                  It might be possible for the issue of the status of the Patetonga Domain to be reframed in a way that it is justiciable, but the current form of the documents and the relief sought are vexatious and an abuse of process. Nor is it appropriate to refer to the Crown as a respondent. If a Minister’s decision is challenged the Minister should be cited as a respondent. If the claim generally is against the Crown the Attorney- General should be cited as a respondent.

[7]                  The documents in their current form are an abuse of process and are struck out under HCR 5.35B.

[8]The applicant has a right to appeal this particular decision.1

Venning J

1      HCR 5.35B(3).