Hall v Brown - [2025] NZHC 197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-001176

[2025] NZHC 197

UNDER The Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review of a decision under Clause 6 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

BETWEEN

PHILIP RAYMOND HALL

Applicant

AND

Billy Brown, Zoe Hawke, Kiwi Johnson, Mook Hohnek, David Taipari, Danella Rorebeck, Taumata Toki, Nick Maaka, John McEnteer, Riikii Minhinick, Aperahama

Edwards, Michael Baker, Glenn Wilcox, Marama Royal, Karen Wilson, Edwards Ashby, William Peters, Anahera Morehu, Georgina Curtis-Conelly, Parekawhia McLean, AS MEMBERS OF THE
SELECTION BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) ACT 2009
First Respondent

THE INDEPENDENT MĀORI STATUTORY BOARD

Second Respondent

Hearing: 11 February 2025

Counsel:

C B Hirschfeld and J P Hickey for Applicant

P F Majurey and T S D Hoby for First Respondent (Second Respondent abides the decision of the Court)

Judgment:

18 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

HALL v BROWN & ORS [2025] NZHC 197 [18 February 2025]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 February 2025 at 2 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Introduction

[1] In 2022, Mr Hall applied to the first respondent (the Selection Body) to be appointed as a mataawaka member of the second respondent (the Board).

[2] Mr Hall was unsuccessful. The Selection Body decided (by majority vote: 11 to 7) that Mr Hall was not eligible to be appointed as a mataawaka member of the Board.

[3]Mr Hall challenges the Selection Body’s decision by way of judicial review.

Background

[4] The Board is established by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (the Act):

81 Establishment and purpose of board

This Part establishes a board whose purpose is to assist the Auckland Council to make decisions, perform functions, and exercise powers by—

(a)promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for—

(i)mana whenua groups; and

(ii)mataawaka of Tamaki Makaurau; and

(b)ensuring that the Council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.

[5]The Act defines “mana whenua group” and “mataawaka”:

mana whenua group means an iwi or hapu that—

(a)exercises historical and continuing mana whenua in an area wholly or partly located in Auckland; and

(b)is 1 or more of the following in Auckland:

(i)a mandated iwi organisation under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004:

(ii)a body that has been the subject of a settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims:

(iii)a body that has been confirmed by the Crown as holding a mandate for the purposes of negotiating Treaty of Waitangi claims and that is currently negotiating with the Crown over the claims

mataawaka means Māori who—

(a)live in Auckland; and

(b)are not in a mana whenua group

[6] The Act also establishes the Selection Body, the sole function of which is to appoint members to the Board.1 As to the appointment of mataawaka representatives:2

6 Selection body chooses mataawaka representatives for board

(1)The selection body…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hall v Brown

Details

AGLC: Hall v Brown [2025] NZHC 197
Case: [2025] NZHC 197
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Philip Hall, an applicant, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Selection Body regarding his eligibility for appointment as a mataawaka member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The Selection Body had determined, by a majority vote, that Mr. Hall was ineligible for the position based on his genealogical connection to the Ngāti Whātua, a mana whenua group. The core legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Hall's eligibility was rightly precluded due to his whakapapa, specifically his ancestral link to Ngāti Whātua, without any further affiliation or self-identification with the group. The court held that the mere ancestral connection to a mana whenua group does not disqualify a person from being considered for a mataawaka position if there is no conscious affiliation with the mana whenua group. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which seeks to distinguish between the roles of mana whenua and mataawaka representatives to advocate for their respective interests.

The court found that the Selection Body erred in concluding Mr. Hall's ineligibility based solely on the ancestral information found on the Waipareira Trust's website. Mr. Hall's extensive application materials and his public statements affirmed his identity as mataawaka and demonstrated his disconnection from any active affiliation with Ngāti Whātua. Consequently, the court quashed the Selection Body's decision regarding Mr. Hall's ineligibility and declared that he is eligible to be considered for the position. However, the court declined to order the reappointment of the current mataawaka members or to require a new selection process, considering the time elapsed since the original decision and the potential disruption to the Board's functioning. The court awarded costs to Mr. Hall on a 2B basis, including second counsel.

Orders