Para No
Introduction  [1]
Is the claim barred by the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000?        [11]
Was the Waikato River navigable in 1903?
The Waikato River  [21]
         The common law[29]
         The Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903  [39]
         A “legislative package”?

1.      Introduction[44]
2.      The wider legislative context[45]
3.      Extinguishment  [63]
The High Court decision  [66]
Discussion
1.      The textual argument  [71]
2.      Purpose  [75]
Conclusion on navigability  [85]
Did the Crown owe a fiduciary duty?
Introduction  [86]
The basic complaint  [87]
The claim as pleaded  [88]
The argument in the High Court  [91]
         A general duty of good faith?  [96]
         The practical difficulties with the concept of fiduciary duties            [102]
A relational duty of good faith?[105]
Relief  [119]
Other matters  [120]
Conclusion  [121]

Introduction

The Pouakani hapu have historical connections to five blocks of land near the town of Mangakino and adjoining approximately 20 miles of the west bank of the Waikato River. They have a longstanding grievance relating to the ownership of the riverbed over that 20 mile stretch. Their claim is not to the river water itself or any backed up dam water. They say that, over a century ago, the Crown wrongfully dispossessed them of a common law interest in the length of the riverbed abutting their lands to the midpoint of the river.
Titles to the Pouakani blocks of lands were individualised by the Native Land Court in 1887, and then progressively acquired by the Crown between 1887 and 1899. Nearly a century later, the Pouakani people sought to advance their concerns as to the alienation of their land (which were wider than mere ownership of the riverbed) through the Waitangi Tribunal, the Mäori Land Court and the High Court. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to settle the Pouakani claims on terms embodied in a Deed of Settlement. The Parliament of New Zealand then passed the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000 (“the Settlement Act”) to give effect to those terms. These included an apology from the Crown, payment of monetary compensation, return of lands and an acknowledgement that the Crown was released and discharged from liability for the Pouakani claims.
Despite these formal legislative measures, certain representatives of the Pouakani people…

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.

Continue reading Paki v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Paki v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 584
Case: [2009] NZCA 584
Decision Date: 11 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Pouakani hapu who claimed that the Crown had wrongfully dispossessed them of a common law interest in the length of the riverbed abuting their lands to the midpoint of the river. The Pouakani people had historical connections to five blocks of land near the town of Mangakino and adjoining approximately 20 miles of the west bank of the Waikato River. They claimed that, over a century ago, the Crown wrongfully dispossessed them of a common law interest in the length of the riverbed abutting their lands to the midpoint of the river. The Crown denied the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the Crown and the Pouakani people, or a breach of an obligation to advise in the circumstances of the case. The High Court dismissed the claim on all the grounds advanced by the Crown. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the claim was barred by the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000 and that the Waikato River was navigable in 1903. The Court also held that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty to the Pouakani people. The appeal was dismissed and there was no order for costs.

Orders