Māori Appellate Court allows Northland man’s appeal, saying earlier decision resulted in prejudice

The Māori Appellate Court has allowed a Northland man’s appeal against an earlier decision of the Māori Land Court, saying the decision was a breach of natural justice and resulted in prejudice

The Māori Appellate Court has allowed a Northland man’s appeal against an earlier decision of the Māori Land Court, saying the earlier decision was a breach of natural justice and resulted in prejudice.

However, he has been warned his case was poorly made and he should think carefully about whether to continue it.

Hone Tana had initially gone to the court to seek a review of the Pukahakaha East 5B Trust. The parties filed a great deal of evidence but the court did not hear the application. Instead, Māori Land Court Judge Te Kani Williams dismissed the application without a hearing and awarded costs against Tana.

Judge Williams was critical of Tana’s case in the first hearing.

The crux of Tana’s complaint was around the trust’s decision to buy two blocks of land at Mahanga Rd in Pataua South and Whakairiora Maunga that he, through the Ngunguru Sandspit Protection Society, had been trying to buy.

Tana alleged the trustees failed to adhere to court directions to meet the hapu iwi trust; the trust used large sums of beneficial owners’ money to buy the land without calling a beneficiary hui; and the trust engaged in fraudulent conduct. He also alleged the trustees acted in situations where there were conflicts of interest.

In reply, the trust’s position was that Tana’s application should be dismissed due to serious defects in the pleadings; a failure to appropriately identify breaches by the trust; the inappropriate nature and allegations made in the application; and the lack of evidence to support the allegations.

Tana appealed the decision not to hear the case to the Māori Appellate Court.

In a just-released decision, the court said there were two key issues: first, because the appeal was filed almost five months out of time, it had to decide whether to grant leave to appeal out of time; second, it had to decide whether the Māori Land Court decision was correct.

It allowed the appeal out of time and directed a rehearing by the Māori Land Court. It also revoked the cost orders imposed on Tana.

The appellate court’s decision said the right to natural justice was a pillar of the justice system and was enshrined by the Bill of Rights Act.

“Natural justice means that every person who appears before the Māori Land Court is entitled to a fair hearing and decisions must be made using fair processes. Natural justice includes the doctrine ... listen to the other side.

“It is the principle that no person should be judged without an opportunity to be heard and respond to the evidence against them.

“The Māori Land Court dismissed Mr Tana’s application for a review of trust without a hearing. Accordingly, Mr Tana did not have an opportunity to be heard and respond to the trust’s submissions.

“Counsel for the respondent, Mr Henderson, sought to convince us that a physical hearing was not required – the mere consideration by the court of the evidence in the course of reaching a conclusion is sufficient. We do not agree. Ultimately, the right to natural justice clearly requires more.”

It pointed to two examples of how the failure to hold a hearing caused prejudice to Tana: first, the Māori Land Court did not hear any initial evidence yet reached factual conclusions on matters that were contested. For example, it assessed the evidence and determined there were no seriously justifiable allegations that required its intervention.

Second, it determined that the trustees of the Pukahakaha 5B Trust were acting appropriately, determining the primary issue raised in the application.

“For example, the court decided that there was no substantial flaw in the process followed by the trustees to purchase certain lands. This process was directly challenged in the review application and in the evidence. Again, the court effectively determined these contested matters without hearing from the parties. Accordingly, the approach of the Māori Land Court was a breach of natural justice and resulted in prejudice.”

On a final point, it said that, while Tana had the right to natural justice, he should appreciate the risks associated with litigation. The application before the Māori Land Court was poorly pleaded and the evidence did not directly support the assertions being made.

“Care should be taken by both Mr Tana and his lawyer as to the future advancement of his case.”