PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1420

PARAHA & ANOR v DAWSON & ORS [2022] NZHC 1420 [16 June 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECIV-2022-463-000038[2022] NZHC 1420IN 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: 16 June 2022Appearances: Applicants in PersonNatalie Coates and Angela Grant for the RespondentsJudgment 16 June 2022[RESULTS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2022 at 12:00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar / Deputy RegistrarDate:Introduction[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. The order was transmitted to this Court for the purposes ofenforcement.[2] The applicants were served a notice to vacate the land by the date of thisjudgment, 16 June 2022. They subsequently applied for a stay of enforcement of theinjunction. A hearing was convened on an urgent basis. After hearing the parties'submissions, I indicated that I would issue a results decision with reasons to follow.This judgment delivers the result.Should the application for a stay be granted?[3] I consider that the application for a stay should not be granted.[4] The applicants' argument broadly proceeded on two grounds. The first is thatthe order requiring them to vacate the Trust's land is in breach of tikanga and theircustomary rights because they are descendants of the original landowners and neverceded sovereignty of the land. This is effectively a challenge to the correctness of theMaori Land Court decision, which found that the applicants unlawfully entered ontoand remained on land owned by the Trust.1 The proper avenue to challenge the meritsof that decision would be to file an appeal, not to apply for a stay. No appeal againstthat decision has been filed and time period to do so has expired. In light of the MaoriLand Court's decision, I cannot accept that the Trust is not the lawful owner of theland.[5] The second ground is that the laws of New Zealand do not apply. While theapplication originally referred to particular rules of the High Court Rules 2016, the1 Dawson v Crown – Kawerau A4 Block (2022) 272 Waiāriki MB 191 (272 WAR 191) at [33].applicants submitted at the hearing that these laws did not apply. Reference was madeto several documents, decrees and covenants. I am not aware of the meaning of thesereferences. Ultimately, I simply cannot accept as a proposition that the laws ofNew Zealand do not apply.[6] In my view, it is not likely that a substantial miscarriage of justice would resultif the judgment were enforced.Result[7] The application for a stay is declined.[8] I will issue a judgment delivering my reasons for the decision in due course.Moore JSolicitors:Ms Coates, RotoruaCopy to:The Applicants