Paki v New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association Incorporated
[2024] NZHC 1551
•13 June 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2023-485-561
[2024] NZHC 1551
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules IN THE MATTER OF
an application for judicial review
BETWEEN
TŪPOUTAMA PAKI
First Applicant
FENTON AKIURA WALKER
Second ApplicantAND
NEW ZEALAND POST-PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Respondent
Hearing: 12 April 2024 Counsel:
MK Mahuika and TN Hauraki for Applicants TJ Kennedy and TWR Lynskey for Respondent
Judgment:
13 June 2024
JUDGMENT OF MUIR J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Kāhui Legal, Wellington.
Izard Weston Lawyers, Wellington. TJ Kennedy, Wellington.
PAKI v PPTA [2024] NZHC 1551 [13 June 2024]
Introduction
[1] Ngā Manu Kōrero, an annual national secondary school speech competition, is regarded as the most significant event on the Māori educational calendar. Its purpose is to encourage the development of skills and confidence among Māori students in spoken English and Te Reo Māori. All secondary schools are invited to participate. The national finals can attract audiences of up to 5,000 people. Competitors are filtered through school and regional competitions with each of 15 regions promoting finalists in various categories for the national competition.
[2] On 23 June 2023, Tamamutu Mitchell (Tamamutu) was declared the winner of the Te Arawa regional competition in the Pei Te Hurinui Jones category,1 but his win was subsequently revoked on the basis of the imposition of a five-mark time penalty.2 As a result he was ineligible to proceed to the national competition.
[3] Mr Fenton Akiura Walker, the former tumuaki of Tamamutu’s kura (Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Whakarewa i Te Reo ki Tūwharetoa (the kura), and Mr Tūpoutama Paki, chair of te whānau o Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Whakarewa i Te Reo ki Tūwharetoa, seek judicial review of this decision.
[4] The national competition was held in Ōtepoti, Dunedin from 19 to 21 September 2023. No application was made for interim relief. The applicants’ counsel says that this was out of respect for the mana of the competition. The ultimate winner in the Pei Te Hurinui Jones category was not from the Te Arawa region.
An opportunity missed
[5] The application came before me in Wellington on 12 April 2024. Having heard Mr Mahuika’s argument on behalf of the applicants and having made my own enquiries as to the suitability of a tikanga based resolution process, I indicated after the lunch adjournment that I would hear the balance of the submissions but then defer
1 Involving a prepared speech in Māori of “up to 12 minutes in length and no less than 10 minutes to allow time for inclusion of Ngā Mihi” plus “an impromptu speech in Māori of up to three minutes in length, with a five-minute period of preparation time”.
2 With a result that a “final decision” was made that “[he] will not be advancing to the National Ngā Manu Kōrero 2023” and the runner up was promoted to the National Competition.
delivery of a judgment until the parties had explored whether, and if so on what terms, recourse to tikanga might be possible. I did so with the active support of the applicants’ counsel and cognisant of the fact that in early correspondence the applicants and a large number of their supporters had made an impassioned plea to the Te Komiti Matua3 of Ngā Manu Kōrero that “Tikanga Māori is the only recourse in this instance” and that decision makers had chosen “bureaucracy over tikanga” in a way which left Tamamutu “burdened with the weight of whakamā”.
[6] Accordingly, at the conclusion of argument I delivered a detailed eight-page Minute setting out the bases on which I “strongly” recommended mutual engagement in a tikanga based process.4 I went so far as to say that, had I been in the position to direct it, I would have. That conclusion was reached despite the fact that there had been some attempts in the latter part of last year to negotiate a settlement. There had been no mutual commitment however to identifying a tikanga based solution through that process.
[7] Following my Minute, and in the week of 13 May 2024, the respondent, the New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), filed a memorandum stating that it had yet to receive a formal proposal from the applicants and indicating that it would “prefer” me to proceed to a decision. I responded indicating that I would likewise “prefer” the PPTA to first consider any proposal formulated by the applicants and setting an adjusted timetable accordingly.5
[8] On 17 May 2024 the applicants’ proposal was tabled. In it, counsel noted that it would be inappropriate in tikanga terms for the applicants to unilaterally specify and determine the tikanga based process and suggesting therefore a two-stage approach. This approach would involve an initial hui which would, among other things, discuss and refine the issues for resolution and set the kawa and tikanga for a further hui; and a second hui to seek a tikanga based resolution to the issues identified.
3 Translating broadly to Executive Committee.
4 Minute of Muir J, 12 April 2024.
5 Minute of Muir J, 14 May 2024.
[9] The letter noted an expectation that those attending both hui come with “an open mind and open heart” and suggested that legal counsel not lead or be involved in the discussion.
[10] On 24 May 2024 the respondent filed a brief memorandum stating that it did not agree to the proposal and requesting that the court issue a judgment.
[11] I consider the PPTA’s response both surprising and disappointing. The constitution of the PPTA includes “explicit … commitment to the principles to the Treaty of Waitangi as central to [its] Constitution.”6 It acknowledges the PPTA’s “commitment to the concept of genuine partnership embodied in the Treaty”,7 noting that: “partnership can occur at all levels of policy making by the sharing of power and decision making, satisfactory methods of consultation and the inclusion of cultural perspectives in policies”; “partnership can refer to the process of drafting, implementing and monitoring legislation”; “partnership is about the manner in which representation is ensured at all levels of administration”; “partnership concerns the allocation of resources”; “partnership extends to the provision of social services and the types of services available”; “partnership challenges the diverse ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand to consider their relationships with tangata whenua”; and “partnership requires opportunity for the partners to regularly review their relationship and to plan jointly for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders”.8
[12] Significantly, the Constitution identifies that the PPTA will affirm and advance “the duty to protect actively, to the fullest possible extent, Māori values” and “the duty to work to make PPTA structures and policies responsive to the needs of Māori as well as non-Māori”.9 Explicit recognition of commitment to the Treaty is said “to provide a focal point for further discussion and action”.
[13] I find it difficult to align these commitments—in particular, the duty to protect actively and to the fullest extent Māori values—and the approach adopted by the
6 PPTA Constitution (New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers Association Incorporated, Constitution, January 2022) at 5.
7 Identifying the Treaty as being “about two peoples entering into an agreement as equal partners”.
8 PPTA Constitution, above n 6, at 5.
9 At 6.
respondent to the proposal that a tikanga based solution be pursued. Whatever the PPTA’s role in Ngā Manu Kōrero is, and whether the PPTA is the decision maker for judicial review purposes or not, its status as a leader within the educational community is such that I have no doubt it could have used its influence to promote a tikanga based solution if minded to do so. Its reluctance to do so represents an opportunity missed.
[14]That said, I now proceed to judgment as invited to do.
Background
[15] Tamamutu’s victory on Friday 23 June was by a small margin over a female contestant from another school. Shortly after the competition, a complaint was lodged by the whānau of the runner up, claiming that Tamamutu has exceeded the allocated time for his prepared speech.
[16] The rules by which the 2023 competition was to be conducted both at regional and national levels are contained in a 53-page booklet (the Handbook).10 In the Pei Te Hurinui Jones category, the Handbook identifies that the prepared speech is to be up to twelve minutes in length but a minimum of ten minutes. A series of penalties are imposed for speeches under ten or over twelve minutes. A speech of under ten minutes attracts a penalty of minus five points. A speech of up to one minute over time attracts a like penalty, and anything over one minute, a ten-point penalty.
[17] In their protest against the result, the whānau of the runner up alleged that Tamamutu had exceeded his allotted speaking time by five seconds therefore attracting a five-point penalty. Because the runner up’s own score was within five points of Tamamutu’s, it was claimed that she was the rightful winner of the contest.
[18] Deponents for the applicants and respondent cannot agree whether Tamamutu’s speech exceeded the time allocated. I have been provided with a time stamped video recording with which to make my own assessment if necessary.
[19]The Handbook further provides:
10 Ngā Whatakataetae Mō Ngā Manu Kōrero (Ngā Manu Kōrero Handbook, 2023).
TIME KEEPING / PENALTIES
PPTA will supply orange and red flags and bells to regional coordinators. The timekeeper will sound a warning bell and wave an orange flag indicating that the speaker has 1 minute to conclude. The second red bell and flag will indicate that time is up. The timekeeper will note if the speech goes for over a minute more, or less, than the allotted time.11
[20] In this case, no bell was sounded nor red flag waved until immediately after Tamamutu said “Te tuohu kau noa”, the phrase which, in advance of his speech, he had said he would conclude with. The word “noa” was spoken at precisely 12.00 on the time clock. Thereafter and in the course of the next four to five seconds he introduced the haka tautoko.
[21] The timekeepers were uncertain whether to include the introduction of the haka tautoko in their overall calculation and were unable to clarify the issue. Although noting an overrun on their timesheets they did not therefore “circle” the penalty on the timesheet as mandated in the case of an overrun. Because no penalty had been circled, no deduction was made and Tamamutu was declared the winner of the competition on the day.
[22] Although the whānau of the runner up lodged their protest the same day, Tamamutu’s kura proceeded to celebrate his success shortly afterwards in a ceremony which was attended by whānau and friends. In her affidavit Tamamutu’s mother speaks of the “immense joy and pride” his achievement brought to “all of us”. The implication for his mana in the context of the subsequent rescission of his win cannot in that context, be overstated. Indeed, it is suggested that where once there was mana now there is whakamā.
[23] The runner up’s protest was addressed first by the Ngā Manu Kōrero Te Arawa Regional Committee (a committee comprised of representatives from all the participating schools in the region described as “unincorporated and very informal in its structure”). The Executive members of that committee enquired into the complaint
11 The requirement only to make a note for overruns of “over a minute” seems unusual given that a penalty also applies for speeches up to one minute over time. Here the timekeepers noted a purported overrun of less than a minute.
but were unable to reach a consensus position. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the National Committee.
[24] The National Committee consists of 16 members, 15 who are chosen by the respective regions together with one PPTA representative.
[25] The Handbook does not specify formal procedures for National Committee decision making. It contemplates that “major decisions for the national competition” will be made by:12
… a committee consisting of not less than one member of the following two groups:
· The National Host Committee
· NZ Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua
[26] There is a specific plagiarism policy in the context of the national competitions. Somewhat contradictorily it suggests that “the host committee will investigate the validity of the accusation” but then notes “the committee must consist of the chair of the National Host Committee and one rep from the Regional Ngā Manu Kōrero Coordinators’ Committee and one rep from PPTA Te Wehengarua”.13
[27] When told that the result declared on 23 June 2023 was under challenge, Mr Walker wrote to the Regional Committee. His email of 30 June 2023 sought an extensive array of material which would enable proper consideration of the complaint, including a copy of the official video recording (apparently three hours in total) of all the speeches that were given at the Te Arawa regional competition. It appears that the Regional Committee’s decision to elevate the matter to the National Committee occurred shortly after receipt of this correspondence.
[28] On 10 July 2023 Mr Walker repeated his request to the Regional Committee. In the absence of an answer, he then elevated the matter to the National Committee.
12 Ngā Manu Kōrero Handbook, above n 10, at 23.
13 At 23.
[29] On 17 July 2023 the Chair of the National Committee, Ms Miriama Barton (who is also the PPTA representative on the National Committee), wrote to the Regional Committee identifying a number of issues which she said were raised by the dispute.
[30] Significantly, neither the Regional Committee nor the National Committee provided Mr Walker with the materials he requested before, on 21 July, a “final” decision was communicated. This occurred on PPTA letterhead with the correspondence signed by Ms Barton identifying her dual roles as Kaihautū Māori – PPTA Te Wehengarua,14 and Upoko o Te Komiti Manu Kōrero o te Motu.15 It records:
It has been difficult for us to make this decision and we haven’t taken it lightly. I regret to inform you that the decision of the National Committee is that Tamamutu Mitchell will not be the Te Arawa representative this year…
(Emphasis added).
[31] Tamamutu is not an applicant in the proceedings. However, I accept that he is a person with significant interest in the outcome, confirmed by the presence of his mother throughout the hearing of the application. Her affidavit, recording the impact on Tamamutu of the decision to rescind his win, should have been a cause for concern for all those with the capacity to address his grievances. Professional assistance has been necessary both for Tamamutu and members of his whānau. His mother finds it disturbing that “an organisation that has supposedly centred Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its constitutional framework has responded to these issues in the way it has”.
The issues
[32]The proceeding raises a number of issues:
(a)Whether the PPTA was the relevant decision maker.
(b)Whether if it did make the relevant decision, this involved the exercise of a public power or function, and whether therefore the proceedings
14 Translating to Leader Māori PPTA.
15 Translating to Chair of the National Committee of Ngā Manu Kōrero.
identify sufficient public interest to engage the Court’s jurisdiction on judicial review.
(c)Whether the applicants have sufficient interest in the proceedings to satisfy standing requirements.
(d)Whether the litigation is moot given that the national competition in which Tamamutu was eligible to compete prior to revocation of his win was held in September 2023.
(e)Whether, even if the decision is amenable to judicial review, the Court should exercise its discretion not to grant relief.
[33] Of these issues, whether the respondent was the decision maker is in the nature of a threshold enquiry. Regrettably from Tamamutu’s perspective, I must resolve that issue against the applicants. I do this by sufficiently decisive margins that I do not consider it necessary for me to address the other issues identified. I nevertheless intend to conclude my judgment with some obiter remarks about the underlying merits of the applicants’ claims. I do so in the hope that, in some small way these may help in the restoration of Tamamutu’s mana and that of his kura and wider whānau.
Identity of decision maker
[34] For the applicants, Mr Mahuika fairly acknowledges the difficulties they face in establishing that the PPTA was the relevant decision maker.
[35] On the face of Ms Barton’s letter of 21 July 2023, the decision to deny Tamamutu his win was the decision of the unincorporated Ngā Manu Kōrero National Committee.
[36] The fact that the letter was on PPTA letterhead and signed by Ms Barton with identification of her dual roles as Kaihautū Māori of the PPTA and Chair of the National Committee does not, in my view, change that position. She acknowledges that sending the letter on PPTA letterhead and with her PPTA role specified was a
mistake. She was correct to do so. The correspondence records “a final decision” of “the National Committee”, not the PPTA.
[37]Mr Mahuika accepts that reality but says that:
(a)The PPTA had overall administration for the competition as it received and administered public funding for Ngā Manu Kōrero and administered the Handbook.
(b)It therefore had an obligation to ensure the competition was managed to an appropriate standard, including through committees (i.e. the National Committee) constituted under the Handbook.
(c)In any event, the decision was reported to the PPTA and therefore at that stage it was within that purview to engage.
[38] It is correct that the PPTA has long standing funding arrangements with the Ministry of Education for the Ngā Manu Kōrero competition. The agreement governing the 2023 competition (the Agreement) is dated 16 June 2023. It identifies that the purpose of the funding is to:
(a)Support the costs of managing and organising the Ngā Manu Kōrero National Speech competition 2023.
(b)Enable regions to travel to the national competition.
(c)Provide a summary of the event along with finalised audited accounts.
[39] On its face, therefore, the Agreement is focused on funding to support the National Competition whereas the events in issue occurred in the context of a regional competition.
[40] Clause 2 of the Agreement provides that in return for the funding, the Ministry is to receive recognition at various levels including an invitation to attend the award ceremony and the opportunity “to nominate one judge for the judging panel”.
[41] I accept Mr Mahuika’s submission that the PPTA’s agreement to provide these benefits assumes an ability to deliver them, and therefore a strong measure of influence over organisation and management of the competition. The schedule to the agreement also sets out a number of “recipient” obligations including providing the Ministry with reports and delivery of the project in accordance with all best currently accepted principles and applicable laws and regulations. In itself this assumes a high level of input into the organisation and management of the competition by the PPTA.
[42] I also accept that the Handbook purports to be a detailed and comprehensive policy governing administration of Ngā Manu Kōrero and includes rules for the competition and the processes the participants can expect in the event that a dispute arises.
[43] The Handbook is published on the PPTA’s website. It identifies PPTA involvement at a number of levels:
(a)It supplies general material for the regional and national competitions including judging sheets that can be downloaded from the PPTA’s website and the flags and bells identified in the Handbook for time keeping purposes.
(b)The parents and guardians of the students must give the PPTA permission to use, publish or copyright images of video footage of the competition and images and video footage will remain the property of the PPTA.
(c)Grants to assist with the costs incurred for running the regional competitions are available from the PPTA. Requests are to be sent to the PPTA Te Wehengarua National Office email address “[email protected]”. Financial accountability forms relating to running the regional competitions are in turn to be sent to “Miriama Barton PPTA Te Wehengarua, PO Box 2119, Wellington 6140”.
(d)Regional coordinators are required to send the names of the winners of the regional competitions to all other regional coordinators as well as “National Host Komiti”, and to email “[email protected]”.
(e)“All major decisions for the national competition” will be made in the way indicated in [25] above.
(f)Plagiarism allegations in the context of the national competition will be investigated in the manner indicated in [26] above.
[44] But all of this still leaves the applicants considerably shy of establishing that it was the PPTA, as an incorporated entity, that made the relevant decision on 21 July 2023.
[45] Ms Kennedy for the PPTA argues that this decision was in fact that of the Regional Committee. She emphasises the provision on page 30 of the Handbook in terms:
DISPUTES AND COMPLAINTS
From time to time disputes or complaints are made against competitors for perceived breaking of rules. At the regional compeititons (sic) these should be dealt with by the regional coordinator.
At the national level a Disputes Committee will be formed by the host committee based on the criteria on page 22.16
[46] Whether the dispute in this case “should” have been dealt with by the regional coordinator Ms Aramoana Mohi-Maxwell, the fact is that it was not. Having been unable to establish a consensus position “on what to do about the complaint”17 she records that the Executive members of the Te Arawa Regional Committee therefore decided to elevate the matter.
16 The reference to page 22 appears to be an error. Page 23 contains the provisions previously identified under the heading Disputes and Policy Changes and subheading Plagiarism Policy. Page 23 does not refer to a “Disputes Committee” as such.
17 She says that there was consensus he had gone over time but not as to consequence. Mr Fenton says that she told him that “the Regional Committee was split as to whether Tamamutu was over time or not”. I am unable to resolve that conflict on the affidavits alone.
[47] Ms Barton denies that the matter ever proceeded to National Committee decision. She says that whatever assistance the Regional Committee may have received from the National Committee, the ultimate decision remained that of the Regional Committee. I regard that position as untenable. On its face the decision refers to it being that of the National Committee. I consider it surprising that a senior executive of the PPTA would, in affidavit evidence, promote a proposition so clearly at odds with the written record and that this position was maintained by the PPTA’s counsel in submissions.
[48] It may be that the National Committee had no official role in determining complaints or disputes arising out of regional competitions but nor was there any prohibition in the Handbook on elevation of the dispute in the manner which occurred. It is clear from the evidence that Ms Barton consulted, inter alia, with the National Adjudicator and the Regional Coordinator. She was happy to give the final decision the imprimatur of the National Committee. Her letter identifies her as chair of that Committee. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest she acted without mandate in doing so. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary, including an absence of consensus at regional level and the decision to elevate the dispute accordingly.
[49] However, despite my reservations about this aspect of Ms Barton’s evidence, I cannot, where the weight of evidence is demonstrably against the proposition, logically proceed from a point of reservation to a finding that the PPTA was the relevant decision maker. Whatever authority (whether direct or delegated) Ms Barton had from the other 15 members of the National Committee, the decision communicated by her was made on its behalf. It was not a decision of the PPTA as such.
[50] This finding, that the PPTA was not the relevant decision maker, disposes of the application for judicial review.
Additional comments
[51] I consider there to have been a number of problems in the way Tamamutu and those advocating for him were treated in relation to the Te Arawa regional competition. Had I been seized of the merits of this case some criticism could have been expected.
I make brief reference to twin concerns in the hope that a similar injustice can be avoided in the future.
The basis upon which his speech was ostensibly timed
[52] As I have noted, there is disagreement among the deponents about whether Tamamutu exceeded the 12-minute maximum permitted for prepared speeches in the Pei Te Hurinui Jones category. The National Committee’s position as reflected in Ms Barton’s letter of 21 July 2023, is clearly that time was measured from Tamamutu’s “first utterance to the final kupu he stated before the haka started”.
[53] There is nothing in the Handbook to suggest that ceremonial formalities, whether at the commencement or conclusion of a speech are appropriately included in the time period allocated. Indeed there are contrary indicators,18 and in her earlier correspondence of 17 July 2023 Ms Barton notes that “… no rohe, as reported by māngai to the National Committee, carries on timing after the line before the rōpū tautoko waiata or haka”. Moreover, speeches must be in respect of six pre-approved topics in the Te Reo Māori section. There is a compelling argument for saying that, absent specific provisions to the contrary, the measurement of time should exclude tikanga appropriate introductions and perorations unrelated to the pre-approved topics.
[54] Clearly this issue concerned the timekeepers because, as I have again already noted, although they recorded an overrun of five seconds on their timesheets, they did not circle the minus five-point prescribed penalty. I draw as an appropriate inference that they were unsure whether the penalty applied because the alleged five second overrun did not relate to Tamamutu’s speech as such.
[55]They had every reason for caution. The uncontradicted evidence is that:
18 For example: on page 6 where it is stated that “The Māori language sections have additional time allocated for the traditional “mihi which is not judged”; page 15 where it says the “prepared speech” in the Pei Te Hurinui Jones contest is to be up to 12 minutes in length and no less than 10 minutes to allow time for inclusion of “Ngā Mihi”; and page 40 where the timekeeper is required to make a note if the “speech” goes for over a minute more or less, than the allocated time.
(a)Prior to his speech Tamamutu approached the timekeepers to say that his kōrero would end with the phrase “Te tuohu kau noa”,19 rather than the more usual “Tēnā koutou katoa”. He was concerned that the timekeepers may not have high fluency in te reo and wished to ensure that the particular phrase with which he chose to finish—one significant to him as Tūwharetoa—would be noted for time purposes.
(b)The last word “noa” was uttered at precisely 12.00 on the video time clock. I have personally reviewed the evidence in this respect.
(c)Thereafter, in what could loosely be described as a call to action, he commences the introduction of the haka tautoko. Simultaneously, and at time stamp 12.01, the timekeeper raises the red flag. By 12.04, the rōpū tautoko are getting to their feet and by 12.08 the haka is in full performance.
[56] In this context the suggestion that Tamamutu’s “prepared speech” (which is what the time limit related to in the Handbook) exceeded 12 minutes, is in my view, unpersuasive. Moreover, Tamamutu had a reasonable expectation based on his prior exchange with the timekeepers that no such interpretation of the rules would be adopted. They knew that his speech was to conclude with the word “noa”. They knew that a haka tautoko would follow and that in accordance with tikanga it would be led by Tamamutu. There was no suggestion that words of introduction to the haka would be included within relevant time limits.
[57] To the extent it might also be suggested that timing did not start at the precise moment required (a proposition for which there is no evidence in the video recording) the answer again lies in Tamamutu’s reasonable expectation that, based on the rules identified in the Handbook, a bell would be sounded and red flag waved at the 12.00 minute mark giving him the option to conclude his speech at that point and not take a time penalty. As I have indicated, the time stamp confirms he had finished his speech before the flag was raised, but if the time stamp is in any way in error, he was denied the opportunity identified.
19 Translating to “That is the end of my stand”.
Breach of natural justice
[58] The prospect that Tamamutu might be deprived of his win was a matter of great moment to him, his whānau and his kura. The matter was taken up in a formal way by Mr Walker. He requested (in correspondence of 30 June and 4 July):
(a)the written complaint from the runner up;
(b)the Regional Committee’s review of the timekeeping protocols and supporting documentation;
(c)the full compilation of marking sheets;
(d)the Te Arawa Pouako i te Reo policy for reviewing complaints;
(e)the Te Arawa Pouako i te Reo policy for resolving an issue where a conflict of interest with a committee member exists;
(f)a full account of Te Arawa Pouako internal procedures both formal and informal in dealing with the issue; and
(g)full documentation and correspondence of the Te Arawa Pouako account to the National Committee and the National Committee’s complete documented formal response.
[59] None of this material was provided before the National Committee’s decision was communicated on 21 July 2023 nor was there any formal engagement with Mr Walker of any kind. This despite the fact that he repeated his information requests in further correspondence to the Regional Committee on 10 July 2023 and then elevated them to the National Committee. In my view, significant natural justice issues arise in this context. Mr Walker was deprived of appropriate base material with which to advance Tamamutu’s case. Had it been appropriate for me to consider the underlying merits of the case, this conclusion may of itself have been decisive.
[60] As indicated, my hope is that brief although these comments are, they may at least in part assist in the restoration of Tamamutu’s mana. As is apparent from this judgment, I have significant reservations about the reasons for and manner in which his win was revoked.
Result
[61]I dismiss the application for judicial review.
Costs
[62] Should the respondent advance an application for costs, memoranda may be filed on the following timetable:
(a)Respondent’s memorandum by 27 June 2024.
(b)Applicants’ memorandum by 8 July 2024.
(c)Any reply by 15 July 2024.
[63] No memorandum is to exceed five pages in length plus a maximum one-page schedule.
[64] In the particular circumstances of this case, I may take some persuading that costs are appropriately awarded to the respondent.
Muir J
0
0
0