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
GROUP N, STAGE 1(a) and STAGE 1(b)
[2024] NZHC 1233
BETWEEN the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana Act) 2011. AND
applications for orders recognising Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary rights
Continued…
Hearing: 16 May 2024 Counsel:
U A Kuddus for applicant for leave to intervene, Apihaka Mack and Marama Tamati-Martin, on behalf of Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti
A R Irwin for Ngāti Tamarangi hapū of Muaūpoko iwi
N R Coates and P Walker for Ngāti Raukawa ki te TongaB R Lyall, M R G van Alphen-Fyfe and H L B Swedlund for Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Ahi Kā o Te Mateawa
C Shenton (self-represented) for Te Rūnanga o Ngā Wairiki Ngāti
ApaT H Bennion and E A Whiley for Muaūpoko Tribal Authority Incorporated
A M Cameron and A J Samuels for Te Ātiawa Ki Whakarongotai E K Rongo for Tiratu Williams and Patricia Grace for the owners of Hongoeka Blocks; and Ngāti Toa Rangatira
D A Ward, D O Kleinsman and A H Ou for Attorney General
F R Wedde and C E Bulow for Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Kāpiti Coast District Council
L L Black for Te Patutokotoko
C F Finlayson KC for Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust C M Hockly for Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust
MACA NGĀTIAWA (RESULTS JUDGMENT) [2024] NZHC 1233 [16 May 2024]
Judgment: 16 May 2024
ORAL RESULTS JUDGMENT OF GRICE J
(Application for leave to intervene by Apihaka Mack and Marama Tamati-Martin, on behalf of Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti)
BY William James Taueki on behalf of behalf of Ngāti Tamarangi hapū of Muaūpoko iwi (CIV-2017-485-160) BY Margaret Morgan-Allen for David Morgan Whānau (CIV-2017-485-214) BY Rachael Ann Selby on behalf of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga
(CIV-2017-485 229)
BY Patrick Seymour on behalf of Te Whānau Tima (Seymour) and Te Ahi Kā o Te Mateawa (CIV-2017-485-273) BY Chris Shenton on behalf of Te Rūnanga o
Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa (CIV-2017-485-511)
BY Muaūpoko represented by Muaūpoko Tribal Authority Incorporated
(CIV-2017-485-261)
BY Trustees of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust on behalf of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai (CIV-2017-485-248) BY Tiratu Williams and Patricia Grace for the owners of Hongoeka Blocks
(CIV-2017-485-258)
BY Te Ātiawa ki te Ūpoko o te Ika ā Māui Pōtiki Trust (CIV-2017-485-260) BY Trustees of Tupoki Takarangi Trust (1996) on behalf of owners of Parangarahu 2B1 and 2C and their descendants (CIV- 2017-485-211)
INTERESTED PARTIES Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Incorporated on behalf of the iwi of Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Crown engagement)
MAC-01-12-021 Attorney General Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Kāpiti Coast District Council Porirua City Council Edward Tautahi Penetito, and Donald Koroheke Tait of Ngāti Kauwhata (Crown engagement) MAC-01-11-008 Christopher Henare Tahana, Edward (Fred) Clark, Hayden Tūroa, and Novena McGuckin on behalf of Te Patutokotoko (CIV-2017-485-254) (Intervener) Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust (applied) Seafood Industry Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust New Zealand Transport Agency Waka
Kotahi
[1] The application for leave to intervene by Apihaka Mack and Marama Tamati-Martin, on behalf of Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti, is declined. The reasons judgment will follow.
Grice J
Solicitors
Kāhui Legal, Wellington Bennion Law, Wellington Whāia Legal, Wellington
Oranganui Legal Limited, Paraparaumu Crown Law, Wellington
Bundle Findlay, Wellington Black Law, Nelson
Hockly Legal, Auckland Phoenix Law, Wellington
- AGLC
- Ng�tiawa T�p�tonga Tai K�piti [2024] NZHC 1233
- Case
- [2024] NZHC 1233
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was to assess whether Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti's intervention would be in the interests of justice and whether they had a sufficient interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The court considered the relevance and significance of Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti's interests in relation to the applications already made by other parties. Grice J examined whether the application to intervene would unduly delay or prejudice the other proceedings, and whether there were other means available to protect Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti's interests. The court concluded that granting leave to intervene would not be in the interests of justice and declined the application.
The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the balance between the interests of the applicant and the existing proceedings. Grice J found that Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti had not demonstrated that their intervention was necessary to ensure a fair and just outcome of the proceedings. The court also noted that the existing proceedings were sufficiently comprehensive to address the interests of all relevant parties, including those of Ngātiawa Tōpūtonga Tai Kāpiti. As a result, the court declined the application for leave to intervene.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.