Rudi Hartono v The Ministry for Primary Industries

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 61/2017
[2017] NZSC 117

BETWEEN

RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS
Applicants

AND

MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
First Respondent

SAJO OYANG CORPORATION
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	K K Harding for Applicants C J Lange for First Respondent R B Squire QC for Second Respondent
Judgment:	9 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).

BThe approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Although leave to appeal has been granted in general terms and we are not restricting the arguments which may be advanced on the approved question, we wish to hear from counsel on the following line of argument:
(a)the Oyang 75 is “forfeit property” for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996;
(b)the applicants individually are within the expression “any fishing crew” in (b)(ii) of the definition of “interest”;[1]
[1]Emphasis added.
(c)they have claims for “unpaid wages”;
(d)in respect of those claims, they had, prior to forfeiture, in rem rights in respect of the Oyang 75; and
(e)such rights are within the contemplation of the expression “an
interest … that any fishing crew have in unpaid wages”.

Solicitors:
Karen Harding Law, Auckland for Applicants
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for First Respondent
Oceanlaw New Zealand, Nelson for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine whether Rudi Hartono and others had an interest in the Oyang 75 under section 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996. The applicants, Rudi Hartono and others, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed their claims against the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Sajo Oyang Corporation. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the applicants had an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of section 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996. This required an analysis of whether the Oyang 75 was forfeit property, and if the applicants, as part of the fishing crew, had claims for unpaid wages and in rem rights prior to the forfeiture of the vessel.

The Court was asked to consider several key points. Firstly, whether the Oyang 75 was considered forfeit property under the relevant section of the Act. Secondly, if the applicants, as members of the fishing crew, fell within the definition of 'any fishing crew' under the Act. Thirdly, the Court needed to determine whether the applicants had valid claims for unpaid wages. Fourthly, the Court considered whether these claims, if valid, resulted in in rem rights in the Oyang 75 prior to its forfeiture. Finally, the Court had to decide whether these in rem rights could be classified as an interest under the expression ‘an interest … that any fishing crew have in unpaid wages’.

In granting leave to appeal, the Court allowed the applicants to argue these points before it. The Court noted that while the arguments could be advanced in general terms, it wished to hear counsel on the specific line of reasoning outlined above. The Court emphasised the importance of these specific issues in determining whether the applicants had an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of section 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996. This decision paves the way for a detailed examination of the applicants' claims and the rights they may hold in relation to the vessel and their unpaid wages.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established