Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata - [2022] NZHC 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2019-441-000018

[2022] NZHC 113

BETWEEN
MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST

Plaintiff

AND

WI HUATA DONNA HUATA

Defendants

AND

P C RAIKES LIMITED

Interested Party

Hearing: 4–6 October 2021

Appearances:

L Foley and K Tulloch-Otimi for the Plaintiff D O’Connor for the Defendants

Judgment:

8 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

MANGAROA 26N2 TRUST v WI HUATA [2021] NZHC 113 [8 February 2022]

Contents

Introduction  [1]
Agreed facts and issues  [8]
Procedural history  [10]

Mangaroa 26N2 Trust [13]

The background occupation by the Huatas [22]

Events leading to 1999 Heads of Agreement  [38]
Events following the 1999 Heads of Agreement  [54]
Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993  [108]
Interpretation  [129]
Effect of s 228 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act  [142]
Analysis  [153]
Specific performance  [173]
Conclusion  [174]

Improvements [176]
Other claims by the Huatas [186]

Conclusion [190]
Costs [194]

Introduction

[1] Mrs Miriama Te Whare bought a rural property in Hawkes Bay on 12 January 1909.1 The land is general land owned by Māori and is an estate in fee simple.2

[2] The Mangaroa 26N2 Trust (the Trust) was constituted on 27 June 1974 under s 438 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953 to administer the land for Mrs Te Whare’s descendants. The current trustees are Charles (Chula) Wall, Doug Wall, Joe Gotty and Carol Mitchell.

[3] Mr and Mrs Huata, the defendants, oppose the Trust’s claim to recover possession of the land. Since 1987 the Huata whānau, as trustees and beneficiaries of the Te Huawhenua Trust (the Huatas), have occupied the trust land at Maraekakaho Road, Hastings. The parties had been in dispute since that time over various matters.

[4] This dispute relates to whether the arrangements between the Mangaroa Trust and the Huatas included an option to purchase the land. The defendants say this option was given to them by Mangaroa trustees under a Heads of Agreement dated 1999. In the same Heads of Agreement, the Trust agreed it would lease the block of land to the Huatas for 20 years. That lease expired on 30 September 2019.

[5] The Mangaroa trustees say that the Heads of Agreement does not include an enforceable option to purchase. In any event they say that the Huatas have not paid their rent on time and have always been unsatisfactory tenants, therefore, they should not be entitled to exercise that option if the Court determines that the option is valid.

[6] P C Raikes Ltd, which uses part of the land under licence from the Huatas, has participated in the hearing. Mr Raikes gave evidence for his company which claims to be a subtenant of the Huatas. The Mangaroa trustees say they did not agree to a

1 The present certificate of title for the relevant block of land is described as identifier HBV4/1351
(Hawkes Bay), lot 2 deposited plan 1996 with an area of 17.699 hectares.
2 Kirkham (on behalf of the trustees of Mangaroa 26N2…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mangaroa 26N2 Trust v Huata and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 113
Decision Date: 8 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Mangaroa 26N2 Trust (the Trust) brought proceedings against the Huatas seeking possession of land located in Hawkes Bay. The Huatas, who had been occupying the land since 1987, claimed that they had an option to purchase the land pursuant to an agreement between the parties in 1999. The Trust claimed that the option to purchase was not valid and binding. The Trust further claimed that the Huatas were not entitled to compensation for improvements they had made to the land. The Huatas sought specific performance of the option to purchase, or alternatively compensation for improvements. The Court was required to determine whether the option to purchase was valid and binding. The Court was also required to determine whether the Huatas were entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land. The Court found that the option to purchase was not valid and binding. The Court found that the trustees did not have the power to grant the option to purchase because of the operation of section 228 of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, which was in force in 1999. The Court further found that the option to purchase was not sufficiently certain to be enforceable. The Court found that the Huatas were not entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land because the trustees had not consented to the improvements. The Court ordered that the Trust was entitled to possession of the land and that the Huatas were not entitled to compensation for improvements made to the land. The Court ordered that the Trust was entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

Orders