PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1737
The applicants were wholly unsuccessful, advanced an unproven allegation of theft that could not be resolved or used to justify costs in the stay application, and accordingly the respondents, as the successful party, were entitled to costs assessed at $1,195 under Step 62 of Schedule 3 to the High Court Rules 2016.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 1737
- Parties
- Applicant: Te Aho Paraha (also known as SirChristian, Christian Crown, ChristianSurnamecrown or Christian Aio); Applicant: Doreen Paraha; Respondent: Maria Dawson; Respondent: Robert Fox; Respondent: Paora Paatu Hunia; Respondent: Newton Theodore Karekare (as trustee of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust)
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 July 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Stay of Enforcement of a Maori Land Court Order / Judgment on Costs Following Refusal of Stay (hearing on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Applicants ordered to pay costs to respondents
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Enforcement, Costs Award, Enforcement of Orders, Damages Claim Separate Proceedings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Te Aho Paraha (also known as SirChristian, Christian Crown, ChristianSurnamecrown or Christian Aio)
Applicant
Doreen Paraha
Applicant
Maria Dawson
Respondent
Robert Fox
Respondent
Paora Paatu Hunia
Respondent
Newton Theodore Karekare (as trustee of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Enforcement of a Maori Land Court Order / Judgment on Costs Following Refusal of Stay (hearing on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of enforcement should be granted
- 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to costs and the appropriate quantum
- 3 Whether an allegation of theft of property could be the basis for a costs award in these proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants were wholly unsuccessful, advanced an unproven allegation of theft that could not be resolved or used to justify costs in the stay application, and accordingly the respondents, as the successful party, were entitled to costs assessed at $1,195 under Step 62 of Schedule 3 to the High Court Rules 2016.
Court Disposition
Applicants ordered to pay costs to respondents
Orders
- Applicants to pay costs of $1,195 to the respondents
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1737 [20 July 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECIV-2022-463-000038[2022] NZHC 1737IN 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 20 July 2022[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 20 July 2022 at 1:00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar / Deputy RegistrarDate:Background[1] On 16 June 2022, I declined the applicants' application for a stay ofenforcement of a Maori Land Court order restraining them from residing on therespondent trust's land and ordering them to remove all objects and structures that theyhave taken onto and erected on the land.1[2] I expressed my preliminary view that the respondents were entitled to costshaving successfully defended the application, but reserved leave to file memoranda.Both parties now seek costs against each other.Costs[3] The applicants seek costs of $15,300. This is said to be their actual costsassociated with the proceedings because the respondents (allegedly) stole propertyfrom them valued at that amount.[4] The applicants adduced no evidence to support this allegation. Even so, aclaim of that sort cannot be incorporated in the determination of costs on theirapplication for a stay of enforcement. Any such claim would need to be the subject ofseparate proceedings seeking damages.[5] There is no basis in law or fact to support the applicants' claim in costs. Theywere wholly unsuccessful in their application. The principles that costs follow theevent and the successful party is normally entitled to costs apply here.[6] The respondents, on the other hand, were successful. They seek costs on a 2Bbasis of $1,195. They rely on Step 62 of sch 3 to the High Court Rules 2016, whichprovides for a half day allocation for "other enforcement process". This figure doesnot exceed the respondents' actual legal costs of $1,537.50 (excluding GST).[7] Despite the fact that the application for a stay of enforcement was entirelymeritless, it required opposition from the respondents including the preparation of1 Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1420. See also Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1443 for mysubsequent judgment delivering my reasons.written submissions and an appearance at a hearing convened by way of telephoneconference. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the quantum of costs claimedby the respondents is appropriate.Result[8] The applicants are to pay costs of $1,195 to the respondents.Moore JSolicitors:Ms Coates, RotoruaMs Grant, RotoruaCopy to:The Applicants