PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 2294

PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 2294 [9 September 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECIV-2022-463-000038[2022] NZHC 2294IN THE MATTER Of the land known as Kawerau A4 BlockBETWEEN TE AHO PARAHA (also known as SirChristian, Christian Crown, ChristianSurnamecrown or Christian Aio) andDOREEN PARAHAApplicantsAND MARIA DAWSON, ROBERT FOX,PAORA PAATU HUNIA and NEWTONTHEODORE KAREKARE as trustees of theKawerau A4 Ahu Whenua TrustRespondentsHearing: (On the papers)Counsel: Applicants in PersonNatalie Coates and Angela Grant for the RespondentsJudgment 9 September 2022JUDGMENT OF MOORE J[Leave to appeal]This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2022 at 11:00 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar / Deputy RegistrarDate:Background[1] The respondents, on behalf of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust ("theTrust"), obtained an injunction in the Maori Land Court restraining the applicants,Te Aho Paraha (also known as Sir Christian, Christian Crown, ChristianSurnamecrown or Christian Aio) and Doreen Paraha, from residing on the Trust's landand ordering them to remove all objects and structures that they have taken onto anderected on the land.[2] The applicants applied for a stay of enforcement of the injunction. On16 June 2022, I issued a results judgment declining the application.1[3] On 20 June 2022, I issued a reasons judgment.2 I noted the Maori Land Court'sfinding that the applicants had no legal right to occupy the Trust's land.3 Yet theapplicants had prevented the respondents from accessing their land for some time.4Contrary to the applicant's submissions, a miscarriage of justice would arise if the staywas granted.5[4] The applicants now apply for leave to appeal.6 The threshold for leave is high.7The ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.8Relevant considerations include whether the applicant can identify an arguable erroror law or fact; whether that error is of general or public importance or otherwise ofsufficient importance to the applicant; and whether the circumstances warrantincurring further delay.91 Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1420.2 Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1443.3 At [23].4 At [24].5 At [24].6 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56(3) provides that leave is required to appeal a decision of the HighCourt on an interlocutory application to the Court of Appeal. See Lange v Lange [2020] NZHC3151 at [21] where Gault J noted that an application for a stay of enforcement under r 17.29 of theHigh Court Rules 2016 is an interlocutory application.7 Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122 at [6(a)].8 At [6(e)].9 At [6(b)-(d)].[5] While I am conscious that I am being asked to review the correctness of myown decision,10 I am not satisfied that the applicants have pointed to an error of lawor fact. The proposed appeal is not of general importance. Nor do the circumstanceswarrant incurring further delay. The respondents satisfied the Maori Land Court thatthe applicants were infringing upon their right to access their land. A grant of leave toappeal would only serve to prolong the process of rectifying that infringement.[6] For those reasons, a grant of leave to appeal is not in the interests of justice.Result[7] The application for leave to appeal is declined.Moore JSolicitors:Ms Coates, RotoruaMs Grant, RotoruaCopy to:The Applicants10 Lange v Lange [2020] NZHC 3151 at [29].