Legal Research
Cases
Poutu v Attorney-General

Poutu v Attorney-General

Case [2021] NZHC 723 1 April 2021

Contract Formation

Interpretation of Contract

Rectification

Estoppel by Convention

Equitable Estoppel

Contract Law

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-545

[2021] NZHC 723

BETWEEN
LIANA HUIA POUTU, WHAREHOKA CRAIG ROBERT WANO, TANYA KIM SKELTON, SHELLEY JANE KOPU, AMOKURA HUIA ANGELINE PANOHO, DAMON PAUL RITAI AND HOWARD KEVIN TAMATI

Plaintiffs

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 14-15 September 2020

Appearances:

R J B Fowler QC for Plaintiffs

C Tyson and A Goosen for Defendant

Judgment:

1 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs are the current trustees of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, the lawfully mandated post-settlement governance entity for the iwi of Te Atiawa (the Trust). The trustees bring this proceeding to implement a deed of settlement of a Treaty claim. Specifically, the trustees seek to enforce the terms of the deed which on its face applies a 20 per cent reduction from market value on all 51 properties that the trustees may elect to purchase under the deed.

[2] The Crown’s case is that properly interpreted the 20 per cent adjustment in the deed applies to a single property, the unimproved land on which the New Plymouth Courthouse is situated (the New Plymouth Courthouse or Courthouse). That is what

POUTU, WANO, SKELTON, KOPU, PANOHO, RITAI AND TAMATI v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 723 [1 April 2021]

the parties negotiated, and agreed, and Te Atiawa is estopped from advancing any contrary interpretation. Alternatively, the Crown seeks rectification.

[3] Te Atiawa concedes that with the exception of the New Plymouth Courthouse the 20 per cent adjustment did not feature in the settlement negotiations. Nevertheless, Te Atiawa says the provisions in the deed are unambiguous and it seeks enforcement of their terms. Te Atiawa resists the Crown’s estoppel defence and argues further that while the facts make the deed amenable to rectification, there are factors telling against the Court’s discretion to do so.

Overview

[4] The material facts are uncontested. Further specific matters the trustees do not contest are set out at [14].

[5] On 9 August 2014 Te Atiawa, the trustees and the Crown signed a Deed of Settlement of Historical Claims (settlement deed). The Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Act 2016 gave effect to certain provisions in the settlement deed.1

[6] In their respective submissions counsel refer throughout to “Te Atiawa”. Te Atiawa is “the collective group composed of individuals who are descended from 1 or more Te Atiawa tūpuna”.2 The trustees are the plaintiffs. They are also the persons upon whom the settlement deed confers obligations, powers and rights, such as the right to elect to purchase properties described in the deed. Nevertheless, to be consistent with the parties, by and large, I too will refer to “Te Atiawa” rather than “the trustees”.

[7] Under the terms of the settlement deed the trustees can elect to purchase certain properties at market value, less 20 per cent. The schedule of properties to which the 20 per cent reduction is said to apply lists 52 Ministry of Justice…

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 Poutu v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Poutu v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 723
Case: [2021] NZHC 723
Decision Date: 1 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, sought to enforce the terms of a deed of settlement which provided for a 20 per cent reduction from market value on all 51 properties that the trustees could elect to purchase under the deed. The Crown argued that the 20 per cent adjustment only applied to the New Plymouth Courthouse, which is leased to the Ministry of Justice for justice purposes, and not to the other 51 properties. The Crown also sought rectification of the deed. The Court found that the objective evidence showed a common intention and an agreement between the parties to apply the 20 per cent adjustment only to the New Plymouth Courthouse, and that the settlement deed should be interpreted accordingly. The Court granted the Crown's application to rectify the settlement deed and ordered that the definition of "Ministry of Justice property" in the deed be amended to reflect the parties' agreement. The Court also made a declaration that the plaintiffs had acquired the properties listed in their statement of claim at the correct price in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties and recorded in the rectified settlement deed. Costs were to lie where they fell.

In summary, the Court found that the settlement deed should be interpreted to reflect the parties' common intention and agreement that the 20 per cent adjustment only applied to the New Plymouth Courthouse. The Court granted the Crown's application for rectification of the deed and made a declaration that the plaintiffs had acquired the relevant properties at the correct price. However, the Court found that costs should lie where they fell given the circumstances of the case.

Orders