Muaūpoko Tribal Authority
[2025] NZHC 2232
•8 August 2025
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-2017-485-229 CIV-2017-485-248; CIV-2017-485-261 CIV-2017-485-273; CIV-2017-485-511
Group N, STAGE 1(a) [2025] NZHC 2232
UNDER the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 IN THE MATTER OF
of applications for a stay of judgment for orders recognising Customary Marine Title
BY
Muaūpoko represented by Muaūpoko Tribal Authority Incorporated (CIV-2017-485-261) and Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust
Applicants
Hearing: 28 July 2025 Appearances:
T H Bennion and Kudrat for Muaūpoko Tribal Authority Incorporated for Applicant
C F Finlayson KC for Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust for Applicant
N R Coates for Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga for Respondent B R Lyall for Patrick Seymour on behalf of Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Ahikā o te Hapū Mateawa for Respondent A M Cameron for trustees of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust for Respondent
Judgment:
8 August 2025
REASONS JUDGMENT OF GRICE J
(Applications for Stay of judgment pending appeal)
Appearances: C M Hockly for Horowhenua 11 (Part) Reservation Trust (appearance excused) for Interested Party
L I S Tothill and T P Talamaivao for Te Rūnanga o Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa (C Shenton) for Interested Party
Re Muaūpoko Tribal Authority & Ors (stay reasons) [2025] NZHC 2232 [8 August 2025]
O T H Neas for Ngāti Tamarangi hapū of Muaūpoko iwi for Interested Party
E K Rongo for Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Incorporated for Interested party
D O Kleinsman for Attorney-General for Interested Party
AND
Rachael Ann Selby on behalf of Ngāti
Raukawa ki te Tonga
(CIV-2017-485-229)
Respondent
AND Patrick Seymour on behalf of Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Ahikā o te Hapū Mateawa (CIV-2017-485-273)
Respondent
AND Trustees of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust on behalf of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai (CIV-2017-485-248)
Respondent
INTERESTED PARTIES Horowhenua 11 (Part) Reservation Trust (Supports the application for Stay) Chris Shenton on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa
(CIV-2017-485-511)
(Supports the application for Stay)
William James Taueki on behalf of behalf of Ngāti Tamarangi hapū of Muaūpoko iwi (CIV-2017-485-160)
(Will abide the Court’s decision)
Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Incorporated on behalf of the iwi of Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Crown engagement)
MAC-01-12-021
(Opposes the Stay application)
Attorney-General
Introduction
[1] In a judgment dated 9 June 2025, this Court found that various applicant groups had met the test for customary marine title (CMT) under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (Takutai Moana Act), as follows:1
[1171] … (a)
Exclusive CMT for Te Ātiawa over the takutai moana from Whareroa to Kukutauaki, subject to shared exclusive CMT:
(i) with Ngāti Toa at the Whareroa boundary (if they are granted CMT for that area through the Crown negotiation pathway); and
(ii) with Ngāti Raukawa at the Kukutauaki boundary.
(b)
Exclusive CMT for Ngāti Raukawa over the takutai moana from Kukutauaki to the Rangitīkei River, subject to shared exclusive CMT:
(i) with Te Ātiawa at the Kukutauaki boundary;
(ii) with Mr Tima from the Ōhau River to the Waikawa River;
(iii) with Muaūpoko over the takutai moana from the Hōkio Stream to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest); and
(iv) with Mr Taueki over the takutai moana from Te Uamairangi to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest).
(c)
Shared exclusive CMT for Muaūpoko over the takutai moana:
(i) with Ngāti Raukawa from the Hōkio Stream to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest); and
(ii) with Mr Taueki from Te Uamairangi to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest).
(d)
Shared exclusive CMT for Mr Taueki over the takutai moana from Te Uamairangi to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest) with Muaūpoko and Ngāti Raukawa.
(e)
Shared exclusive CMT for Mr Tima over the takutai moana from the Ōhau River to the Waikawa River with Ngāti Raukawa.
[1172]
The
seaward extent of the various CMT areas to be held as exclusive
and shared exclusive CMT as indicated above, is as follows:
1 Re Taueki (Ngāti Tamarangi) & Ors [2025] NZHC 1488 [CMT judgment].
(a)For Muaūpoko, one nautical mile out to sea from the mean high-water springs from the Hōkio Stream to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest).
(b)For Mr Taueki, one kilometre out to sea from the mean high-water springs running from Te Uamairangi to Ngā Manu (at the north-western corner of the Waitārere Forest).
(c)For Ngāti Raukawa, one nautical mile from the mean high-water springs running from Kūkūtauaki to the northern bank of the Rangtīkei River.
(d)For Mr Tima, one nautical mile from the mean high-water springs running from the Ōhau River to the Waikawa River.
(e)For Te Ātiawa:
(i) from the Waikanae River to Wharemauku on the mainland across the Te Rau o Te Rangi Channel to Kapiti Island; and
(ii) one nautical mile from the mean high-water springs on the claimed mainland coast not abutting the channel.
[2] A hearing for the determination of wāhi tapu sites and the finalisation of CMT orders is due to commence on 29 September 2025.2
[3] Appeals have been lodged in the Court of Appeal by Muaūpoko Tribal Authority (MTA), Chris Shenton on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa (Ngāti Apa) and Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust (Rangitāne), in relation to the determinations of this Court regarding CMT. MTA and Rangitāne supported by Horowhenua 11 (Part) Reservation Trust and Ngāti Apa seek a stay of the proceedings pending appeal. For convenience, the stay applicants and Ngāti Apa are collectively referred to as the Kurahaupō iwi.3
[4] The Kurahaupō iwi argue that there are important and novel issues of fact and law involved in the substantive CMT appeal. They say that should they succeed and MTA and Ngāti Apa receive the CMT recognition orders sought, they will be prejudiced if the wāhi tapu claims have meanwhile been determined. As wāhi tapu claims may only be brought by those who have been awarded CMT in the relevant
2 Re Taueki (Ngāti Tamarangi) HC Wellington CIV-2017-485-160, 11 July 2025 (Minute of Grice J).
3 See CMT judgment, above n 1, at [3].
area,4 matters relating to wāhi tapu would require rehearing in those circumstances. In addition, the applicants say that decisions relating to wāhi tapu claims, including the evidence that should be presented to the Court, involve sensitive issues in which the Kurahaupō iwi kaumātua should be involved. If the wāhi tapu hearing were held as planned in September 2025, they would not have a say in discussions pertaining to the relevant areas of interest.
[5] MTA’s claimed interests extend across the whole hearing area, as it not only appeals against this Court’s determination regarding its application for CMT (from Kukutauaki to the Manawatū River), but also says the Court erred in earlier dismissing its application to amend its CMT claim to cover the whole of the hearing area.5 Ngāti Apa’s area of interest is from Omarupapako to the Rangitīkei River. Rangitāne was not an applicant in the hearing, but its relevant area of interest lies between the Manawatū and Rangitīkei rivers.
[6] Mr Taueki, on behalf of Ngāti Tamarangi (a hapū of Muaūpoko), has not appealed and will abide the decision of this Court on the stay application.
[7] Cross appeals, limited to the extent of the seaward boundary for CMT, have been filed by Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Raukawa, and Mr Tima on behalf of Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Ahikā o te Hapū Mateawa (Te Whānau Tima). They, together with Ngāti Toa, oppose the stay application. Together, I refer to those iwi as the Hekenga iwi.6
Legal principles
[8] There is no automatic stay of proceedings pending an appeal.7 Rule 20.10 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) provides for applications for a stay of proceedings and stay of enforcement of any judgment or order appealed against, pending determination of the appeal. There is little contest as to the law applicable to stay applications. All parties relied on the formulation of the test in the Whakatōhea
4 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, ss 62(c) and 78(1).
5 Re Muaūpoko Tribal Authority [2024] NZHC 536. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed in Re Muaūpoko Tribal Authority [2024] NZHC 967.
6 See CMT judgment, above n 1, at [3].
7 High Court Rules 2016 [HCR], r 20.10(1).
Kotahitanga Waka v Te Kāhui Takutai Moana o Ngā Whānui me Ngā Hapū (Re Edwards) proceedings.8
[9] The Court of Appeal in that case noted that a court is required to balance the competing rights of the party who obtained the benefit of judgment being appealed, against the need to preserve the appellant’s position in the event of the appeal succeeding.9 The Court identified the relevant factors in the balancing exercise as those set out in Wootton v Wootton, which include:
(a)whether the appeal may be rendered nugatory by the lack of a stay;
(b)the bona fides of the applicant as to the prosecution of the appeal;
(c)whether the successful party will be injuriously affected by the stay;
(d)the effect on third parties;
(e)the novelty and importance of questions involved;
(f)the public interest in the proceeding; and
(g)the overall balance of convenience.
[10]The apparent strength of the appeal is also a relevant factor.10
[11] Of the above factors, the main argument centres around whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay were declined, and the injurious effect of a stay on the Hekenga iwi. I therefore address those factors first, before dealing with the other factors to the extent they are relevant, and assessing where the overall balance of convenience lies.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory and the injurious effect of a stay on the Hekenga iwi
[12] Relevant to whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory without a stay, is the unusual provision in s 113 of the Takutai Moana Act. That section provides that a
8 Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka v Te Kāhui Takutai Moana o Ngā Whānui me Ngā Hapū [2022] NZCA 7 [Re Edwards stay judgment]. While this related to an application for stay under r 12(3) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, there is no material difference between those provisions and the relevant HCR provisions.
9 At [22], citing Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 478 at [9].
10 Wootton, above n 9, at [9].
recognition order must not be sealed prior to the expiry of the appeal period or the disposal of any appeal. Clifford J in the Re Edwards stay decision expanded on this, as follows:11
[27] Moreover, s 113 is clear that recognition orders may not be sealed and come into effect until all appeals are determined. Rather than supporting the conclusion appeals must be determined before a hearing on recognition orders can be made, in my view s 113 supports the opposite conclusion. That is, s 113’s unusual prohibition on sealing pending the outcome of appeals protects appellants from the usual range of prejudice said to arise where a challenged decision proceeds to execution. Nor, in my view, can the applicants point to any other material prejudice. …
[13] Mr Bennion, for MTA, points to the evidence filed in support of the stay application, including the effects of the CMT decision insofar as it relates to marine mammal protocols, resource management processes, archaeological authorities, and fisheries issues. In addition, he notes that in other forums, the CMT decision might be relied upon to the detriment of the Kurahaupō iwi if it is not stayed.
[14] As this Court has recognised in relation to other recent applications for stay, s 113 largely preserves the position for appellants.12 Clifford J commented in Re Edwards that in the absence of orders being sealed until the applicants’ appeals had been dealt with, it was difficult to see what prejudice they faced.13 I also accept Mr Cameron’s submission on behalf of the Hekenga iwi that it will be for other courts and tribunals to determine the weight, if any, to place on the CMT judgment.
[15] Mr Bennion notes the complexity of the discussions required in relation to wāhi tapu. He submits that having those discussions in the first instance without the relevant Muaūpoko kaumātua present is highly problematic and prejudicial, even if the discussions were revisited following a successful appeal. In addition, Muaūpoko’s ancestral context would be missing from the kōrero if the Stage 2 hearing went ahead in September. By way of example, Mr Bennion points to the fact that names on the coast were bestowed by Muaūpoko ancestors, as recited in the ancient oriori recording
11 Re Edwards stay judgment, above n 8.
12 See Re Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Inc HC Wellington CIV-2017-485-232, 7 April 2025 (Minute of Gwyn J) [Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū 7 April minute] at [18(c)].
13 Re Edwards stay judgment, above n 8, at [27].
how Te Haunui named rivers as he travelled from the Manawatū Awa to Waikanae in pursuit of his wife.14
[16] In addition, Ms Tothill, for Ngāti Apa, submits that exclusion of the Kurahaupō iwi from wāhi tapu discussions (at least outside the shared CMT areas in which MTA and Mr Taueki had been successful) will exacerbate tensions between all the iwi. If those discussions concerning wāhi tapu were to take place without Kurahaupō kaumatua, it would detrimentally affect the whanaungatanga relationships between the parties. This would be contrary to tikanga.
[17] The Hekenga iwi raise a number of issues to counter these arguments. First, they point to unfair delay to their people, as it has taken eight years to bring the proceedings to hearing. Second, they note the potential loss of voices of their kaumātua, who may be unavailable to give evidence in relation to Stage 2 should it be delayed. This is of particular concern given the tapu nature of the kōrero they will bring. Mr Bennion notes that their evidence could be recorded and used later, although he suggests it might be more efficient to wait until after the appeal is determined, rather than requiring the evidence to be reheard should the appeal be successful.
[18] Mr Cameron also emphasises that momentum generally would be lost if there were further delay. He suggests the imperative to finalise matters would be diminished and those involved would be diverted by other commitments.
[19] A further point raised by Mr Cameron is that the funding for these hearings, which has now been made available by the Crown, has been confirmed for the upcoming September hearing. Funding is also available for the work that needs to be done around the finalisation of orders, mapping and surveying. Mr Cameron notes that this work has been scoped, at least in part.
[20] Mr Cameron also points to the Court of Appeal’s indication that it would prefer that Takutai Moana Act cases on appeal had been finalised, so that all appeals from the various stages could be heard at once. In the Court of Appeal decision in Re Edwards, Miller J noted that the staged approach to Takutai Moana Act hearings
14 See CMT judgment, above n 1, at [723], referring to “He oriori mō Wharaurangi”.
constrained appellate review, and the Court would need consider in future cases whether to delay setting down appeals until final orders had been made at first instance.15 This is consistent with a recent minute of Palmer J dated 4 July 2025, which records that the Re Ngāti Pāhauwera Stage 1 and Re Ngāti Pāhauwera Stage 2 appeals will be heard together, as will the appeals for Southern Wairarapa and Southern Wairarapa Wāhi Tapu, Re Ngāti Kere and any forthcoming appeals in relation to the Northern Wairarapa coast, and the various extant appeals from the Re Edwards proceedings.16 Mr Cameron also notes the concern expressed by Gwyn J in declining a stay pending appeal sought by the Attorney-General, regarding the need to maintain continuity by ensuring the same Judge who conducted the substantive and wāhi tapu hearings is available to consider the final orders.17
[21] Mr Kleinsman notes that the Attorney-General will abide this Court’s decision as to whether a stay should be granted, but makes submissions to assist the Court. The Attorney-General agrees with the applicants that the appeal involves important questions of fact and law, but notes that this does not preclude the Court of Appeal from dealing with the relevant issues if a stay were not granted. Section 113 largely preserves the applicants’ positions. In addition, Mr Kleinsman notes that the applicants are entitled to participate in the Stage 2 hearing, including by way of cross-examination. He acknowledges that a successful appeal would likely result in the need for a rehearing, and without a stay some inefficiency may arise in those circumstances. On the other hand, he notes that the Court of Appeal has expressed a preference to deal with finalised orders on appeal.
[22] Mr Kleinsman refers to the submissions of Mr Bennion that the PCR judgment, yet to be delivered, may affect the wāhi tapu determinations. Mr Kleinsman responds that while the PCR judgment could be relevant, those seeking wāhi tapu orders are on notice of the PCRs claimed and the extent of them. This should be taken into account in their evidence. In addition, s 79(3) of the Takutai Moana Act allows wāhi tapu
15 Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504; [2023] 3 NZLR 252 [Re Edwards (CA)] at [7].
16 Ngāti Pāhauwera CA125/2025, 4 July 2025 (Minute of Palmer J).
17 Re Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Inc HC Wellington CIV-2017-485-232, 7 March 2025 (Minute of Gwyn J) at [14]; and Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū 7 April minute, above n 12, at [28].
conditions to be varied at a later date. In any event, Mr Kleinsman submits, there is unlikely to be considerable variation needed as a result of PCR awards.
[23] Overall, I consider the appeals would not be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted, and any related impacts are outweighed by the injurious effect on the Hekenga iwi of staying the proceedings.
Other factors
[24] The bona fides of the applicants in pursuing the appeal are not in issue. It is accepted that the appellants filed and made known their intention to appeal in a timely manner, and are diligently pursuing the matter.
[25] There is some disagreement about the degree of novelty of the questions involved on appeal. The Hekenga iwi suggest that much of the law on CMT has now been settled in the Re Edwards appeal, at least at the Court of Appeal level, so the issues are not novel to the same extent as they were before that decision.18 In response, the Kurahaupō iwi say that the hearing area has a complex history, which is underscored by the fact that the pūkenga report was unable to disentangle that history. Furthermore, they take issue with whether the application of a “strong presence” test was warranted, which they also say is a matter of public interest.
[26] Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, there has been little detailed argument. The applicants point out the areas of focus on appeal. For MTA, Mr Bennion indicates the primary issues will include application of the strong presence test, and whether the decision runs counter to historical evidence, including findings of the Native Land Court in relation to various purchases (mainly inland) in the contested areas. Ms Tothill says that, insofar as Ngāti Apa’s area of interest is concerned, sufficient evidence was before the Court to support an award of CMT, albeit the threads had not been drawn together due to lack of legal representation. Rangitāne, although not an applicant in the substantive hearing, argued that Ngāti Raukawa had not met the test for CMT, at least in Rangitāne’s area of interest from the Manawatū to Rangitīkei River. On appeal, Rangitāne will emphasise
18 Re Edwards (CA), above n 15.
evidence of its presence in that part of the hearing area, and will argue that this Court was in error in relying on certain historical material.
[27] The respondents submit that, provided the grounds of the appeal point to a bona fide appeal (as here), “the Court should not embark on a determination of the merits of the appeal”.19 Beyond that recognition, it is difficult to assess the merits. That said, there will no doubt be important factual and legal issues canvassed on appeal. The recognition of CMT is an important issue and, as Mr Bennion says, the Kurahaupō iwi have at least 700 years of history in connection with the hearing area.
[28] Despite the applicants’ diligence in bringing the appeal, there will be significant delays in achieving final determinations. It may well be that two further appeals are pursued, which will likely take years rather than months. The applicants note that their discussions with the Registrar of the Court of Appeal suggested, without commitment, that for a five-day hearing (which may not be sufficient) the earliest date that could be contemplated would be in the second half of 2026.
[29] The parties have confirmed that the Court of Appeal is presently managing other groups of Takutai Moana Act appeals, and those appeals do not yet have hearing dates. Mr Cameron notes that the stay in the first substantive Re Edwards appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 1 February 2022.20 The wāhi tapu hearings in that case went ahead in the High Court in February 2022. The appeal from the substantive CMT decision in Re Edwards was heard in February 2023, and the Court of Appeal decision was delivered on 18 October 2023.21 The Supreme Court appeal was heard in November 2024, and the first of two judgments was delivered on 2 December 2024.22 To date, the second judgment has not been issued. In the forthcoming judgment, the Supreme Court will address the application of the CMT test to the facts of the case, as well as dealing with other important issues, including shared exclusivity, and how shared CMT might be held.
19 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Minister of Fisheries [2021] NZHC 2282 at [16].
20 Re Edwards stay judgment, above n 8.
21 Re Edwards (CA), above n 15.
22 Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Ngāti Ira o Waioweka [2024] NZSC 164, [2024] 1 NZLR 857.
[30] Apart from Mr Bennion’s submission on the public interest in clarifying the CMT test, neither side place particular emphasis on that factor. Nor do the parties suggest there will be much effect, one way or another, on third parties, although Mr Bennion did note the ongoing difficulties of dealing with agencies given their uncertainty about determining who is mana whenua. Third parties in this context may include local authorities, which have various obligations in relation to the recognition and protection of rights granted under the Takutai Moana Act. At the substantive hearing, they were concerned to ensure that any CMT and/or PCR areas are clearly and accurately surveyed, and that the scope of any wāhi tapu protection rights is clear. They also sought to address issues relating to PCRs at the appropriate time.23 To that extent, they will be involved in the mapping and wāhi tapu conditions as well as the finalisation of PCRs. The local authorities did not appear in relation to the stay application.
Overall balance of convenience
[31] In view of the provisions of s 113, which prevent the sealing of CMT orders until appeal rights have been exhausted, as well as the provisions of s 62(2), which require applicants for resource management consents to notify any applicant for CMT (which, pending sealing of orders, includes Muaūpoko and Ngāti Apa), the appeals will not be rendered nugatory if successful, in the absence of a stay.
[32] In addition, the applicants may file evidence, cross-examine, and make submissions in the wāhi tapu hearing. While Mr Bennion raises the issue of how extensive that evidence could be, it will at least be sufficient to provide the Muaūpoko ancestral context where relevant.
[33] While the applicants emphasise the importance and impact of CMT recognition orders, which I accept, the awards do not affect the application of tikanga on the ground, and its operation between the parties.24
23 CMT judgment, above n 1, at [189].
24 While not in evidence, Ms Rongo who was involved in the Re Edwards proceedings, also noted that, on a practical basis, representatives of non-CMT holders were involved in wāhi tapu discussions as a matter of tikanga.
[34] Mr Bennion offers some suggestions for making progress on mapping, short of undertaking the whole exercise, in order to take advantage of the arrangements made by the parties on a cooperative basis to date. He suggests it would be possible to map, for instance, the high-water mark, as all parties have an interest in that being completed regardless of the appeals. Mr Bennion also suggests that, given funding is now available, if a stay were granted, some funding could be put towards the suggested mapping. At present, the scoping does not involve mapping the high-water mark, although of course that could be included. Nevertheless, it appears to be a minor part of the mapping process. In any event, any mapping that takes place in relation to the coastal boundaries will not be wasted, even in the event there needs to be some adjustments at a later date.
[35] A further suggestion advanced for Rangitāne is that a partial stay could be granted in relation to the northern part of hearing area (between the Manawatū and Rangitīkei Awa). The respondents oppose this, and say there is no reason why that part of the application area should be treated differently from the area as a whole.
[36] I accept that there will be inefficiencies if appeals are successful, and this may result in rehearing of wāhi tapu issues and some remapping. In addition, the fact of the Stage 2 hearing taking place will likely add to the tensions between the parties in the hearing area. However, there has already been substantial delay in these proceedings, and there is likely to be considerably more if a stay is granted pending finalisation of the appeals. The people involved in the proceedings and who now have determinations in their favour are entitled to have those orders finalised to the extent possible. That is also the preferred position of the Court of Appeal. All appeals can then be dealt with together. Furthermore, there will inevitably be a loss of voices and loss of momentum if this matter is put on hold pending appeal. In addition, the funding is now secured, and given the uncertainties surrounding that to date, there is no guarantee the position will be the same in the future.
Conclusion
[37]Overall, the balance of convenience favours declining the stay application.
[38]Accordingly, the application is declined.
Grice J
Solicitors
Bennion Law, Wellington Innes Dean, Palmerston North Kāhui Legal, Wellington
Tu Pono Legal Limited, Rotorua Whāia Legal, Wellington Hockly Legal, Auckland
Dixon & Co Lawyers, Auckland Te Aro Law Ltd, Wellington
Oranganui Legal Limited, Paraparaumu Crown Law, Wellington
0
7
1