Application for judgment by default — jurisdiction of District Court — recovery of land — Maori Trustee Act 1953 — Property Law Act 2007, ss 243, 244, 245, 246, 252 & 253-264 — Crimes Act 1961 — Land Transfer Act 1952, s 121 — District Court Act 2016, ss 78 & 79 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 15.7, 15.8 & 15.9 — Radich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209 — Fatac Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2002] 3 NZLR 648 — Andrews v Trustee Advisors Limited [2015] NZHC 2934. The plaintiff was the Maori Trustee of the Te Araroa Maori Township and was responsible for administering a property in the township that he leased to the defendants for a term of 21 years. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to pay rent when due and also failed to pay rates and penalties. The plaintiff sought orders for possession of the property and repayment of outstanding rent, rates and penalties owed. As the application had been brought under the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) the issue for determination was whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a land recovery order. Section 362 of the PLA outlines the jurisdiction of the District Court in relation to various sections of the PLA which extended the District Court's jurisdiction to deal with actions for recovery of land under ss 78 and 79 of the District Court Act 2016. The Judge discussed the conceptual differences between applications for cancellation of leases (under ss 244-252 of the PLA) and applications for recovery of land, which arise before the lease has been terminated, noting under s 79(2) the leasee must have failed to vacate the whole or part of the premises after termination of the lease. Further, the PLA does not deal with basic notices to vacate, therefore it was a misconception to rely on s 79 to allow the plaintiff to apply for orders relating to the recovery of land. However s 362(2) extends the District Court's jurisdiction to deal with cancellation of leases, the judge stating that nothing in the code excludes the District Court's jurisdiction to hear the case. In relation to the application for judgment by default, pursuant to r 15.9 of the District Court Rules, where a defendant has not filed a statement of defence in time and the preconditions are met, judgment by default may be entered in favour of the plaintiff. The Judge accordingly granted the plaintiff judgment by default in relation to their claims for money owed in the sum of $16,051.74 plus $294 for disbursements and granted judgment by default under r 15.8 and made an order for recovery of possession of the land plus $94 for disbursments. Judgment Date: 15 December 2017.