Proprietors of Wakat� and Rore Pat Stafford v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 13/2015
[2015] NZSC 54

BETWEEN

PROPRIETORS OF WAKATŪ
First Applicant

RORE PAT STAFFORD
Second Applicant

RORE PAT STAFFORD, PAUL TE POA KARORO MORGAN, WAARI WARD‑HOLMES and JAMES DARGAVILLE WHEELER, as Trustees of TE KᾹHUI NGAHURU TRUST
Third Applicants

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	A R Galbraith QC, K S Feint and M S Smith for Applicants D J Goddard QC, J R Gough and J M Prebble for Respondent
Judgment:	8 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
BThe cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.

C The approved grounds are:
1Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu?

2If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time?

3If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown?

4If so, what relief is appropriate?

5Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014?

DThe appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Pitt & Moore, Nelson for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford v Attorney-General. The applicants, including the Proprietors of Wakatū, Rore Pat Stafford, and trustees of Te Kāhui Ngahururu Trust, sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision, which had previously ruled against them. The Attorney-General cross-applied for leave to appeal regarding the standing of Rore Pat Stafford to bring the proceedings. The applicants were represented by A R Galbraith QC, K S Feint, and M S Smith, while the Attorney-General was represented by D J Goddard QC, J R Gough, and J M Prebble.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court involved determining whether the Crown had breached its duties under the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company. The court also had to decide if such breaches were subject to any defences available to the Crown, such as the lapse of time. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether the applicants had standing to bring civil proceedings against the Crown for these breaches. Another key issue was whether the relief sought by the applicants was barred by section 25 of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014.

The Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal by the applicants and the cross-application by the Attorney-General. The grounds for appeal, which were approved by the court, focused on the Crown's potential breach of duties, the availability of time-related defences, the applicants' standing, the appropriateness of the relief, and the applicability of section 25 of the aforementioned act. The appeal was scheduled for a four-day hearing starting on 12 October 2015. The court's decision to grant leave to appeal indicated a significant interest in revisiting and potentially altering the Court of Appeal's judgment on these critical issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established