Mua�poko Tribal Authority - [2024] NZHC 536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-160 CIV-2017-485-214 CIV-2017-485-229 CIV-2017-485-273 CIV-2017-485-511 CIV-2017-485-261 CIV-2017-485-248 CIV-2017-485-258 CIV-2017-485-260 CIV-2017-485-211 CIV-2017-485-254

GROUP N, STAGE 1(a) and STAGE 1(b)

[2024] NZHC 536

UNDER the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana Act) 2011

IN THE MATTER OF

applications for orders recognising Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary rights

Continued…..

Hearing: 2.15pm on 23 February 2024

Counsel:

(Listed below)

Judgment:

13 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application for amendment to application for recognition orders by
Muaūpoko Tribal Authority)

RE MUAŪPOKO TRIBAL AUTHORITY [2024] NZHC 536 [13 March 2024]

AND
William James Taueki on behalf of Ngāti

Tamarangi Hapū (CIV-2017-485-160)

AND

Margaret Morgan-Allen for David Morgan Whānau (CIV-2017-485-214)

AND

Rachael Ann Selby on behalf of Ngāti

Raukawa ki te Tonga (CIV-2017-485 229)

AND

Patrick Seymour on behalf of Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Hapū o Te Mateawa (CIV-2017-485-273)

AND

Chris Shenton on behalf of Te Runanga

Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa
(CIV-2017-485-511)

AND

Muaūpoko represented by Muaūpoko

Tribal Authority Incorporated (CIV-2017-485-261)

AND

Trustees of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust on behalf of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai (CIV-2017-485-248)

AND

Tiratu Williams and Patricia Grace for the owners of Hongoeka Blocks

(CIV-2017-485-258)

AND

Te Ātiawa ki Te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui

Potiki Trust (CIV-2017-485-260)

AND

Tupoki Takarangi Trust (1999) on behalf of owners of Parangarahu 2B1 and 2C and their descendants (CIV-2017-485-211)

AND

Christopher Henare Tahana, Edward (Fred) Clark, Hayden Tūroa, and Novena

McGuckin on behalf of Te Patutokotoko (CIV-2017-485-258)

Counsel: N R Coates for Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga

B R Lyall for Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Hapū o Te

Mateawa (by VMR)

T H Bennion and E A Whiley for Muaūpoko Tribal Authority

Incorporated

T N Ahu and A J Samuels for Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai

E K Rongo for owners of Hongoeka Blocks

M Houra for Te Ātiawa ki Te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui Potiki

Trust (by VMR)

T N Hauraki for Tupoki Takarangi Trust (1999)

No appearance of A K Irwin for Ngāti Tamarangi Hapū No appearance of David Morgan Whānau

No appearance of C Shenton for Te Runanga Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa (self-represented)

Interested parties:

E K Rongo for Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Crown engagement)

D A Ward for Attorney General

No appearance for F R Wedde for Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Kāpiti Coast District Council

No appearance for Dr B D Gilling and R A Soriano for Edward Tautahi Penetito, and Donald Koroheke Tait of Ngāti Kauwhata Crown engagement MAC-01-11-008

No appearance for L L Black for Christopher Henare Tahana and Ors for Te Patutokotoko (Intervener)

No appearance for C F Finlayson KC for Rangitāne o

Manawatu Settlement Trust (applied)

Introduction

[1] These proceedings concern claims filed under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (Takutai Moana), relating to the common marine and coastal area from the Rangitīkei River in the north to Tūrakirae in the south (the area).…

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 Mua�poko Tribal Authority 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: [2024] NZHC 536
Decision Date: 13 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Muaūpoko Tribal Authority Incorporated (Muaūpoko) sought leave to amend its recognition order applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (the Act). It sought to extend its application for a Customary Marine Title order (CMT) to cover the area of its present application for a Protected Customary Rights order (PCR). The Crown and six applicant parties filed submissions in relation to Muaūpoko’s amendment application. Other parties also opposed. The Crown made submissions to assist the Court in its assessment of the application but indicated that it would abide by the Court’s decision. The other parties sought orders to strike out the amendment application. The Court considered the application under the headings of whether the amendment was significant, interpretation of the legislation, changes necessary since the application was filed, and the strike out application. The Court concluded that the amendment sought was significant and would change the character of the original application. It would result in an application for substantially different rights over a much-expanded area with significantly different legal consequences than the original application had contemplated. This was a situation where the amendment sought was “in substance a new application”. In addition, an amendment would be contrary to the interests of justice vis-à-vis other applicants and interested parties. The Court dismissed the application for amendment and dismissed the application for strike out.

Orders