MĀORI TRUSTEE v BRUCE SMITH, RUBY SMITH, COLE SMITH, JARNA SMITH, KRESLEA SMITH [2019] NZHC 1701

MĀORI TRUSTEE v BRUCE SMITH, RUBY SMITH, COLE SMITH, JARNA SMITH, KRESLEA SMITH [2019] NZHC 1701

The Court refused further stays because the defendants had repeatedly refused to comply with valid Māori Land Court orders despite multiple reprieves; the High Court will enforce the transmitted injunction and possession order, release the defendants on condition they vacate and do not return, and warned that breach...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1701
Parties
Entitled Party: Māori Trustee; Liable Party: Bruce Smith; Liable Party: Ruby Smith; Liable Party: Cole Smith; Liable Party: Jarna Smith; Liable Party: Kreslea Smith
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Injunction and Possession Order Arising From Māori Land Court Decision / Hearing Following Execution of Arrest Orders to Consider Further Stay and Name Suppression
Outcome
Arrest orders executed; defendants released at large on condition they vacate the property and do not return; further stay refused; name suppression refused.
Legal Topics
Injunction Enforcement, Possession Orders, Arrest Orders, Name Suppression
Māori Land Law Civil Procedure Property Law Contempt of Court Injunction Enforcement Possession Orders Arrest Orders Name Suppression

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Māori Trustee

Entitled Party

Bruce Smith

Liable Party

Ruby Smith

Liable Party

Cole Smith

Liable Party

Jarna Smith

Liable Party

Kreslea Smith

Liable Party

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Injunction and Possession Order Arising From Māori Land Court Decision / Hearing Following Execution of Arrest Orders to Consider Further Stay and Name Suppression

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further stays or reprieves of arrest orders should be granted after prolonged non‑compliance with Māori Land Court orders
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should reconsider the merits of the underlying Māori Land Court decisions
  3. 3 Whether suppression of the defendants' names should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused further stays because the defendants had repeatedly refused to comply with valid Māori Land Court orders despite multiple reprieves; the High Court will enforce the transmitted injunction and possession order, release the defendants on condition they vacate and do not return, and warned that breach would expose them to contempt proceedings including possible imprisonment of up to three months.

Court Disposition

Arrest orders executed; defendants released at large on condition they vacate the property and do not return; further stay refused; name suppression refused.

Orders

  • Defendants released at large on the clear understanding they will not return to Waipaoa 5A2
  • No further stay or reprieve granted