Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Inc - [2025] NZHC 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2017-485-232 CIV-2017-485-259 CIV-2017-485-224 CIV-2017-485-221 CIV-2017-485-260

GROUP M, STAGE 1(A)

[2025] NZHC 68

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

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for an order recognising Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Continued…

Hearing: 15—18 April 2024; 7 June 2024; and 29—30 July 2024

Appearances:

D C F Naden, M Sreen, S M Yogakumar, H J Fletcher, for Nga Uri O Ngāi Tūmapūhia ā Rangi Hapū

T Bennion for Ngāti Hinewaka

R Siciliano and C Mataira for Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust M Houra for Te Ātiawa

B Lyall and H Swedlund for Kawakawa 1D2 Ahu Whenua Trust B A Scott for the Seafood Industry Representatives

J Prebble and D Kleinsman for the Attorney-General

F R Wedde for the Greater Wellington Regional Council

Judgment:

5 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Wāhi tapu)

RE NGĀI TŪMAPŪHIA-A-RANGI HAPŪ INC (No. 2) [2025] NZHC 68 [5 February 2025]

BY
Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Incorporated, on behalf of Nga Uri O Ngāi Tūmapūhia ā

Rangi Hapū (CIV-2017-485-232)

Ngāti Hinewaka Me Ōna Hapū Karanga

Charitable Trust on behalf of Ngāti Hinewaka (CIV-2017-485-259)

The Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, on behalf of the hapū of Rangitāne o Wairarapa and

Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua (CIV-2017-485-224)

Trustees of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua (CIV-2017-485-221)

Te Ātiawa ki Te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui Potiki Trust on behalf of Te Ātiawa

(CIV-2017-485-260)

INTERESTED PARTIES

Sue Taylor for Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi ki Mōtūwairaka Incorporated and Sam Morris, Lynall Morris, and Jason Morris for Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi ki Ōkautete Incorporated

Kawakawa 1D2 Ahu Whenua Trust

Seafood Industry Representatives

Attorney-General

Greater Wellington Regional Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  [1]
Statutory provisions  [6]
Procedure to date  [17]
Principles  [18]
Purpose and preamble of the Takutai Moana Act, Te Tiriti  [23] Wāhi tapu must be inside the common marine and coastal area (CMCA) [30] Wāhi tapu must have identifiable boundaries  [34]
Wāhi tapu in cases of shared exclusivity  [37]

Meaning of “wāhi tapu” [46]

“Sacred” [52]

Tapu and noa  [67]
Connection with the wāhi tapu/standard of evidence  [83] Conditions and restrictions – must they relate only to access?  [100] When is wāhi tapu protection under the Takutai Moana Act “required”?       [133]
Is protection under the Act required where protection is already provided by other instruments?  [134]
Rangitāne  [147]
Ngāti Hinewaka  [149]
Ngā Rā a Kupe  [170]
Matakitaki-a-Kupe  [176]
Ōhinerua  [182]
Titirangi  [186]
Te Oroi  [191]
Pararaki  [197]
Te Awaiti  [204]
Kārearea  [211]
Te Kopi  [216]
Pāhaoa  [224]
Waikekeno  [229]
Pūkaroro  [233]
Waiwhero river mouth  [239]
Āwhea river mouth  [245]

Rerewhakaitu river mouth  [251]
Mataoperu river mouth  [256]
Ōkorewa  [261]
Kiriwai  [267]

Conclusion on Ngāti Hinewaka sites [271]

Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Inc [272]

Te Ara Moana [276]

Whareama River mouth and surrounding common marine and coastal area    [311]
Waipupu  [312]
Te Uriti  [319]
Waiorongo  [323]
Kaihoata  [327]
Karaka…

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 Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi Hapū Inc 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: [2025] NZHC 68
Decision Date: 5 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered applications for the recognition of customary marine title (CMT) and wāhi tapu (sacred sites) in the southern Wairarapa region. The court granted CMT orders to six applicant groups over five coastal areas. Following this, four of these groups applied for wāhi tapu protections for specific sites within these CMT areas. The court assessed these applications based on statutory criteria, including whether the sites were sacred to Māori, located within the common marine and coastal area, and had identifiable boundaries. The court also considered whether the proposed prohibitions or restrictions were necessary to protect the sites. The court found that while some sites could potentially be recognized as wāhi tapu, more precise mapping and evidence were required to confirm their boundaries and the necessity of specific restrictions. The court allowed the applications to proceed to a final hearing for further submissions and evidence.

Orders