New Zealand Maori Council v Federation of Maori Authorities Incorporated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-485-405 [2015] NZHC 2063

UNDER the Trustee Act 1956

BETWEEN

THE NEW ZEALAND MĀORI

COUNCIL First Applicant

SIR EDWARD TAIHAKUREI DURIE Second Applicant

AND

FEDERATION OF MĀORI AUTHORITIES INCORPORATED Respondent

In Chambers: On papers

Judgment:

28 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS (Costs)

[1] In my judgment of 25 August 2015 I reappointed Sir Edward Durie a Māori

trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust for a further three-year term.1

[2] The appointment should have been made by the first applicant and the respondent together, as Māori Appointor under the trust deed. As I noted, that body has been unable to reach agreement on any recent trustee appointments. The result is that this Court for all practical purposes is now the Māori Appointor. As I also said, that result is regrettable.2

[3] I reserved costs. But I indicated I considered costs should lie where they fall.

1 The New Zealand Māori Council v Federation of Māori Authorities Inc [2015] NZHC 2019.
2 At [1].

[4] Perhaps commendably, perhaps not, the two constituent members now agree on one thing. My indication is wrong. Costs should be awarded.

[5] I accept that the application was competently and efficiently handled and that the hearing was brief. But I decline to award costs.

[6] First, the funds of the trust have been burdened beyond reason already with litigation expenses, to the disadvantage of the proper beneficiaries of the trust and their needs. Secondly, I have given warning previously that further litigation costs may not be awarded by this Court. Thirdly, and most importantly, my previous costs judgment of 16 March 2015 makes clear that requests for reimbursement of Māori
Appointor costs should be directed in the first instance to the trustees.3 Happily,

trusteeship is a function this Court has not assumed.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitors:
Woodward Law Offices, Lower Hutt for Applicants
Johnston Lawrence, Wellington for Respondent
Crown Law, Wellington for Attorney-General

3 New Zealand Māori Council v Foulkes [2015] NZHC 489, 16 March 2015. That includes litigation costs associated with contested trustee appointments: at [21].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the New Zealand Māori Council and Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie filed a case against the Federation of Māori Authorities Incorporated. The dispute centred around the appointment of Māori trustees for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, as governed by the Trustee Act 1956. The applicants sought the reappointment of Sir Edward Durie as a Māori trustee for another term, a responsibility that should have been jointly undertaken by the applicants and the respondent. However, due to the inability of the Māori Appointor to reach an agreement on recent trustee appointments, the court effectively assumed the role of the Māori Appointor. The court had previously reappointed Sir Edward Durie for a three-year term, but the issue of costs arose from this appointment process.

The court was required to decide on the matter of costs associated with the application. The applicants argued that the hearing was brief and handled competently, thus justifying an award of costs. The court considered several factors in its reasoning. Firstly, the court noted that the trust funds had already been burdened with litigation expenses, which disadvantaged the beneficiaries of the trust. Secondly, the court had previously warned that further litigation costs might not be awarded. Thirdly, the court's previous judgment had made clear that requests for reimbursement of Māori Appointor costs should be directed to the trustees initially. The court ultimately decided not to award costs, emphasizing that it had not assumed the function of trusteeship.

The court's decision was based on the need to protect the beneficiaries' interests and the precedent set by previous judgments regarding litigation costs. The court declined to award costs to the applicants, directing that any reimbursement requests should be made to the trustees. This decision highlighted the court's reluctance to burden the trust funds further with unnecessary litigation expenses. The final orders reflected the court's stance on costs, ensuring that the proper beneficiaries' needs were prioritised.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established