Legal Research
Cases
Minhinnick v Attorney-General

Minhinnick v Attorney-General

Case [2025] NZCA 584 6 November 2025

Legitimate Expectation

Fiduciary Duty

Equitable Estoppel

Unconscionable Conduct

Treaty of Waitangi

Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law

Constitutional Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA485/2020

[2025] NZCA 584

BETWEEN RICHARD TE POU MINHINNICK
Appellant
AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Respondent
NEW ZEALAND STEEL LIMITED
Second Respondent
WAIKATO NORTH HEAD MINING
LIMITED
Third Respondent

Hearing:	26–29 February 2024
Court:	Cooper P, French and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	M C Harris and S M Wilson for Appellant S M Kinsler and C E Sinclair for First Respondent J E Hodder KC and T D Smith for Second and Third Respondents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para No

INTRODUCTION

[1]

Overview of factual and procedural background [4]
Amended notice of appeal [33]
Issues for determination [44]
Summary of our conclusions [50]
Structure of the judgment [54]

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[56]

Procedural issues for this Court [56]
The O’Malley and Boast briefs of evidence [57]
The status of the 2014 proceedings [71]
The statement of defence to Ngāti Te Ata’s 1990 claim [75]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES

[79]

Submissions [81]
Our view [89]

THE WAIUKU DEED AND CONFISCATION

[99]

Our approach to the historical evidence [101]
Background to the Waiuku Deed and Confiscation [109]
Ngāti Te Ata’s relationship with Maioro [112]
The economic prosperity of Ngāti Te Ata [116]
The Taranaki conflict [121]
Sales of land by Ngāti Te Ata before November 1864 [125]
The Waikato War [128]
Alleged harassment of Ngāti Te Ata [139]
The lead up to the Waiuku Deed [144]
The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 [152]
The Waiuku Deed [158]
The Confiscation [165]
Later events [168]
The immediate aftermath [168]
The Compensation Court [174]
The October 1865 Crown grants [178]
The New Zealand Settlements Acts Amendment Act 1866 [179]
Waiuku No 3 Deed [180]
Issue of new grants in 1878 [181]
Was the sale under the Waiuku Deed vitiated? [186]
Judgment under appeal [189]
Duress [189]
Unconscionable bargain [196]
Undue influence [198]
Unconscionable bargain [200]
Undue influence [218]
Duress [221]
Our view [226]
Our approach on appeal [226]
Analysis—unconscionable bargain [234]
Analysis—undue influence and duress [262]
Was the Confiscation lawful? [274]
What is the correct interpretation of the word “rebellion” under
the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863? [278]
Judgment under appeal [278]
Appellant’s submissions [279]
Crown submissions [290]
Was Ngāti Te Ata, or a section of it, or any considerable number
thereof, in rebellion? [294]
Judgment under appeal [294]
Appellant’s submissions [295]
Crown submissions [297]
Is the Crown entitled to justify confiscation on the basis that a
“considerable number” of Ngāti Te Ata were in rebellion when
the confiscation wrongly stated that Ngāti Te Ata was an iwi in
rebellion? [301]
Appellant’s submissions [301]
Crown submissions [302]
Even if there was jurisdiction under the New Zealand Settlements
Act 1863, did the Governor exceed his statutory power by declaring
all the land in the district confiscated? [304]
Judgment under appeal [304]
Appellant’s submissions [305]
Crown submissions [307]
Did the New Zealand Settlements Acts Amendment Act 1866
validate any illegality in the Confiscation? [308]
Judgment under appeal [308]
Appellant’s submissions [309]
Crown submissions [310]
Our view [313]
The correct interpretation…

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 Minhinnick v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Minhinnick v Attorney-General [2025] NZCA 584
Case: [2025] NZCA 584
Decision Date: 6 November 2025 at 3.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minhinnick v Attorney-General involves a long-standing grievance of the Ngāti Te Ata iwi against the Crown, arising from the acquisition and confiscation of land in the shadow of the Waikato War that broke out in July 1863. The case involves a challenge to the lawfulness of the acquisition of land by the Crown and subsequent exercise of powers to confiscate land under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The historical claims span over 150 years and relate to four blocks of land known as Te Papawhero, Te Kuo, Waiaraponia, and Tangitanginga (the four wāhi tapu areas) located within Maioro on the Āwhitu Peninsula north of the mouth of the Waikato River. These areas were used for afforestation to stabilise sand dunes and then for New Zealand Steel's manufacturing activities based on the mining of ironsands in the area. The High Court rejected the various claims advanced on behalf of Ngāti Te Ata by Richard Minhinnick, who now appeals. The respondents are the Attorney-General, and New Zealand Steel Ltd and Waikato North Head Mining Ltd. The appeal concerns the lawfulness of the acquisition of land by the Crown, the Confiscation of land under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, the taking of the wāhi tapu under the Public Works Act 1928, the setting apart of the wāhi tapu for ironsands mining purposes under the Iron and Steel Industry Act 1959, and the issue of a licence to mine the wāhi tapu by New Zealand Steel. The appeal also concerns the memorandum of understanding entered into in 1990, which provided for the removal of the wāhi tapu from the mining licence, and the subsequent negotiations and events related to it. The Court's decision on appeal is that the sale under the Waiuku Deed was not voidable as an unconscionable bargain, or for duress or undue influence; the Confiscation of Ngāti Te Ata’s land under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was lawful; the New Zealand Settlements Acts Amendment Act 1866 did not validate any illegality in the Confiscation; and the Waiuku Deed and the Confiscation did not breach a fiduciary duty to consider and protect the interests on Ngāti Te Ata. The takings of the wāhi tapu under the Public Works Act 1928 and the inclusion of the wāhi tapu in the mining licence issued under the Iron and Steel Industry Act 1959 were not unlawful, and did not breach a fiduciary duty owed by the Crown to Ngāti Te Ata. The memorandum of understanding entered into in 1990 did not bind the Crown to return the wāhi tapu to Ngāti Te Ata and remove them from the mining licence. The Crown did not breach a legitimate expectation of Ngāti Te Ata that its claims of breach of the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations would have been fairly addressed by now and not rendered nugatory by Crown action or omission.

Orders