Paraha v Dawson [2023] NZCA 148 (4 May 2022)

Last Updated: 8 May 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA534/2022 [2023] NZCA 148

	BETWEEN	TE AHO PARAHA (also known as Sir Christian, Christian Crown, Christian Surnamecrown or Christian Aio) AND DOREEN PARAHA Applicants
	AND	MARIA DAWSON, ROBERT FOX, PAORA PAATU HUNIA AND NEWTON THEODORE KAREKARE AS TRUSTEES OF THE KAWERAU A4 AHU WHENUA TRUST Respondents

Court:	Gilbert and Courtney JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person N R Coates and A A Grant for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	4 May 2022 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The application for leave to appeal is declined.
2. The applicants must pay the respondent costs calculated for a standard interlocutory application on a band A basis, and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment of the High Court declining to stay execution of a final judgment of the Māori Land Court that has not been appealed. For the reasons set out below, the application must be declined. In short, the high threshold that must be satisfied to justify the grant of leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment is not met. The proposed appeal has no realistic prospects of success in the present circumstances where the final judgment, execution of which is sought to be stayed, has not been appealed.

Background

[2] The respondents are the trustees of the Kawerau A4 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Trust) who administer on behalf of 480 beneficiaries a large block of Māori freehold land situated in Kawerau (the land). The respondents are the registered proprietors of the land.

[3] The applicants commenced occupation of the land in January 2022, without the authority of the trustees, bringing with them various items including a tent, caravan, vehicles, shipping container and fruit trees. The applicants reject the trustees’ authority over the land and their legal title (and the concept of legal title in general). They assert that they are the descendants of the original owners of the land’s parent block and thus have an inherent right to live on the land.

[4] These arguments did not find favour in the Māori Land Court. In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2022, the Māori Land Court granted the respondents’ application for a permanent injunction pursuant to s 19 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (the Act) restraining the applicants from residing on the land and requiring them to remove all objects and structures that they had taken onto and erected on the land.^[1] The Court was satisfied that the trustees had the right to determine the use and occupation of the land and the authority to administer the land on behalf of the beneficial owners.^[2] The applicants were trespassers, having entered onto and remained on the land without lawful justification.^[3] The Court accepted the respondents’ arguments that the circumstances of the trespass were more than minor given the applicants were erecting structures and living on the land free of charge and without consent, despite numerous requests for them to vacate. The applicants’ occupation hindered the trustees’ ability to administer the Trust and develop the land for the benefit of its beneficial owners. An order by way of permanent injunction was the only effective remedy.^[4]

[5] The applicants did not comply with the Māori Land Court order, nor have they appealed against it.

[6] On around 24 May 2022, the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court transmitted a copy of the injunction to the Registrar of the High Court pursuant to s 85 of the Act to enable the High Court’s enforcement powers to be accessed. An order was duly sealed in the High Court on 3 June 2022.^[5]

[7] The applicants then applied to the High Court for a stay of execution of the order. This application was declined by Moore J in a results judgment delivered on 16 June 2022 for the reasons set out in his reasons judgment delivered on 20 June 2022.^[6] The Judge found that a stay was not necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.^[7] He rejected the applicants’ arguments, including that the injunction was in breach of tikanga and their customary right to occupy as descendants of the original owners. This was effectively a challenge to the correctness of Māori Land Court’s judgment and the proper course would be to appeal that decision, not simply to apply for a stay of its enforcement. He noted that the High Court was seized of the matter solely for the purpose of enforcing the order made in the Māori Land Court and he therefore could not accept that the trustees were not the lawful owners of the land.^[8]

[8] The Judge also rejected the applicants’ argument that the laws of New Zealand did not apply to them. He observed that this submission sat somewhat awkwardly with the relief being sought by the applicants themselves. Accepting the submission would render the Court unable to determine the applicants’ application. In any event, he noted that similar claims made by persons that they are outside the courts’ jurisdiction have been consistently rejected.^[9]

Grounds of the present application

[9] In seeking leave to appeal, the applicants say, among other things, that a “huge miscarriage of justice has occurred creating a trespass by way of alienation of customary land”; the trustees have no legal standing to prevent them from occupying the land; the trustees breached tikanga and kawa of Aotearoa by enforcing an erroneous order; the trustees stole their property (vehicles and a kitset bach) and that “needs to be repaid”; and “[a]ll the orders should be overturned.”

[10] In summary, the applicants argue that:

(a) They have a right to occupy the land to the exclusion of the Trust.

(b) New Zealand laws do not apply to them.

(c) The Trust’s actions have breached tikanga, parts of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, rights said to be derived from Christianity, Waitangi Tribunal claims, the decrees of McBride and the Ngā Puhi and Muriwhenua covenants.

[11] They also argue that in refusing to stay execution, the High Court relied on irrelevant and misleading material. For example, they argue that:

(a) The Judge had no evidence to find that Mr Paraha’s various aliases (Sir Christian, Christian Crown, Christian Surnamecrown and Christian Aio) are in fact the same person.

(b) The Judge was wrong to find that the land at issue is vested in the Trust.

(c) Their application for a stay of the enforcement order was filed without notice but this was changed by court staff without authority.

(d) They sought resumption of the land through a hui that was called via Facebook and a miscarriage of justice would occur if this was not given effect to.

Assessment

[12] Leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision should not be granted unless the proposed appeal raises some question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient importance to outweigh the costs and delay of the appeal.^[10]

[13] The high threshold for the grant of leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment has not been made out. As Moore J pointed out, the arguments the applicants seek to advance are challenges to the correctness of the Māori Land Court judgment.^[11] If the applicants wish to pursue those challenges, the proper course is for them to appeal against the Māori Land Court judgment. They do not justify a stay of that final judgment in circumstances where there has been no appeal from it.

[14] Nothing that the applicants have put forward suggests the High Court made any arguable error of law or fact in determining there were no grounds to stay execution of the Māori Land Court judgment in the absence of any appeal from that judgment. The proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of success. It does not raise any seriously arguable question of sufficient public or private importance to justify the grant of leave. The application must accordingly be declined.

Result

[15] The application for leave to appeal is declined.

[16] The applicants must pay the respondent costs calculated for a standard interlocutory application on a band A basis, and usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Kāhui Legal, Wellington for Respondents

---

^[1] Dawson v Crown – Kawerau A4 (2022) 272 Waiaiki MB 191 (272 WAR 191).

^[2] At [37].

^[3] At [33].

^[4] At [34]–[40].

^[5] Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1443 [High Court reasons judgment] at [13]–[14].

^[6] Paraha v Dawson [2022] NZHC 1420 [High Court results judgment]; and High Court reasons judgment, above n 5.

^[7] High Court reasons judgment, above n 5, at [23].

^[8] At [18].

^[9] At [20].

^[10] Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122.

^[11] High Court reasons judgment, above n Error! Bookmark not defined., at [18].