Ngati Hurungaterangi v Ngati Wahiao

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA592/2014
[2014] NZCA 592

BETWEEN	NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE Applicants
AND	NGĀTI WĀHIAO Respondent

Hearing:	25 November 2014
Court:	Randerson, Harrison and White JJ
Counsel:	D J Goddard QC and J P Kahukiwa for Applicants F E Geiringer for Respondent
Judgment:	4 December 2014 at 11:30am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A    Special leave to appeal is granted to the applicants pursuant to art 5(6) of the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the refusal of the High Court by judgment dated 29 April 2014 to grant leave to appeal on questions of law arising from the interim award of an arbitral tribunal (the Panel) delivered on 7 June 2013.
BThe questions of law are:
1         Did the Panel err in law in:
(a)     failing to make findings (supported by reasons) as to who the beneficial owners of the lands at issue were pre-1893?
(b)     failing to determine the parties’ claims to the lands having regard to those findings?
(c)     allocating beneficial ownership of the lands according to broad conceptions of fairness, rather than identifying the persons entitled to beneficial ownership of the lands?
2Did the Panel err in law in finding that Crown purchases of individualised interests in the lands after 1893 resulted in loss of the mana whenua of the hapu in respect of those lands?
3Did the Panel err in law by treating Crown purchases of individualised interests in land post-1893 as a relevant consideration in determining the dispute before it?
4Did the Panel err in law in its approach to s 348 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993?

CThe proceeding is remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants’ appeal on the identified questions of law in accordance with the application for special leave dated 17 October 2014.
D The applicants are entitled to costs against the respondent for a standard application on a Band B basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Corban Revell Lawyers, Auckland for Applicants
Phil Mitchell, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ngati Hurungaterangi, Ngati Taeotu, and Ngati Te Kahu o Ngati Whakaue, collectively known as the applicants, sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal from an interim award of an arbitral tribunal. The respondents, Ngati Wahiao, opposed the application. The appeal before the Court of Appeal involved questions of law arising from the interim award, specifically whether the arbitral tribunal erred in its findings and determinations regarding the beneficial ownership of lands, the impact of Crown purchases on the mana whenua of the hapu, and the tribunal's approach to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicants' arguments and determined that the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal was incorrect. The Court identified four key questions of law that warranted further examination: whether the arbitral tribunal failed to make necessary findings regarding beneficial ownership of the lands, the tribunal's approach to determining the parties' claims, the tribunal's allocation of beneficial ownership based on broad conceptions of fairness, and the tribunal's interpretation of the impact of Crown purchases on the mana whenua of the hapu. The Court found that these questions of law were significant enough to warrant an appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicants special leave to appeal and remitted the proceeding to the High Court to determine the appeal on the identified questions of law. The Court further ordered that the applicants were entitled to costs against the respondents for a standard application on a Band B basis with usual disbursements.

This case highlights the importance of clear and reasoned findings in arbitral tribunal decisions, as well as the need for tribunals to consider relevant legislation in their determinations. The Court of Appeal's decision underscores the significance of addressing questions of law in the context of disputes involving indigenous land ownership and the impact of Crown purchases on the rights of indigenous groups.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established