Leef v Bidois

[2013] NZHC 1349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV 2012-470-000461 [2013] NZHC 1349

UNDER	the Arbitration Act 1996
IN THE MATTER	of an Arbitration Award dated 23 March 2012
BETWEEN	RAPATA (ROBERT) LEEF & ORS Applicants
AND	COLIN BIDOIS & ORS Respondents

Hearing:	6–8, 22 May 2013
Appearances:	S P Bryers for Applicants M J Sharp and TRM Williams for Respondents
Judgment:	10 June 2013

(RESERVED) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J

This judgment is delivered by me on 10 June 2013 at 10am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Martelli McKegg, Auckland (for Applicants) Holland Beckett, Tauranga (for Respondents)

S P Bryers, Auckland (for Applicants)

LEEF & ORS v BIDOIS & ORS [2013] NZHC 1349 [10 June 2013]

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1]

Background

The Treaty of Waitangi claims ........................................................................[4]

The settlement process....................................................................................[7] The mana whenua dispute ............................................................................[12] Subsequent legal proceedings ......................................................................[24]

The issues to be determined ..............................................................................[29]

What is the legal nature of the dispute resolution agreement?

Pirirakau’s application to amend their notice of opposition........................[30]

The dispute resolution agreement.................................................................[34] Issues ............................................................................................................[36] The strike out judgment ................................................................................[39]

Did Ngati Taka and Pirirakau agree to submit the mana whenua dispute to arbitration? ................................................................................................................

(i)   Submissions ...........................................................................................[46]

(ii)  Discussion .............................................................................................[48]

Adispute in respect of a defined legal relationship .............................................[54] (i)   Submissions ...........................................................................................[57] (ii)  Discussion .............................................................................................[59]

Decision in respect of the dispute resolution agreement......................................[71]

Impartiality and independence .........................................................................[75] (i)   Submissions ...........................................................................................[76] (ii)  Discussion .............................................................................................[79]

Were there breaches of natural justice?

NgatiTaka’s amendment application ...................................................................[92] (i)   Submissions ...........................................................................................[94] (ii)  Discussion .............................................................................................[98]

Production of documents....................................................................................[104]

(i)   Submissions .........................................................................................[105]

(ii)  Discussion ........................................................................................... [112]

Should the Court exercise its discretion to set the arbitration award

aside? .................................................................................................................[129]

Result .................................................................................................................[130]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Leef and the other applicants are representatives of the hapu of Ngati Taka.   Mr Bidois and the other respondents are representatives of the hapu of Pirirakau.  I will refer to the applicants and respondents as Ngati Taka and Pirirakau, respectively.  Ngati Taka and Pirirakau are two of the eight hapu affiliated with the iwi Ngati Ranginui, which is domiciled in the Tauranga area.

[2]      Ngati Taka and Pirirakau are in dispute as to which of them has mana whenua over an area of land between the Wairoa and Waipapa Rivers, west of Tauranga.  The land comprises (in general terms) the Te Puna peninsula and inland from the Te Puna peninsula to the coastal side of the Kaimai Ranges (“the disputed land”).  The particular significance of the issue of mana whenua, for the purposes of this judgment, lies in the allocation of the proceeds of settlement of a claim for redress under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

[3]      The  issues  raised  in  this  proceeding  centre  on  a  decision  regarding  the competing claims of Ngati Taka and Pirirakau to mana whenua over the disputed land.

Background

The Treaty of Waitangi claims

[4]      The Treaty of Waitangi claim was in respect of land confiscated from Maori in the Tauranga area in 1864/1865, during…