Rameka v Hall

[2013] NZCA 203

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA775/2011
[2013] NZCA 203

BETWEEN	EMILY RAMEKA AND PUTI PUTI BIEL Appellants
AND	WILLIAM TEMUERA ROBERT HALL Respondent

Hearing:	27 and 28 February 2013
Court:	Ellen France, Harrison and Stevens JJ
Counsel:	P D McKenzie QC and S L Opai for Appellants M S McKechnie for Respondent
Judgment:	5 June 2013 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe decline the application to admit new evidence.       

B        The appeal is dismissed.       

CThe appellants must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction  [1]
Background  [3]
The judgments in the Maori Land and Maori Appellate Courts          [9]
The statutory scheme  [15]
The relevant legal principles  [27]
The mussel farm venture  [34]        
      Opepe diversifies its investments  [34]
      The approach to the appellants’ actions in the courts below             [37]
      The appeal  [40]
      Sufficient notice?  [41]
      Unsatisfactory conduct?  [46]
      Assessment  [50]
Mangamawhitiwhiti  [57]
      The chronology  [57]
      The approach in the courts below  [59]
      Submissions on appeal  [62]
      Evaluation  [63]
Tauhara North  [68]
      Partnership deed  [74]
      Analysis  [75]
      Failure to obtain professional advice  [77]
      Payment of $120,000  [80]
Conclusion on whether there was unsatisfactory conduct                   [81]
The decision to remove  [82]
      The approach in the Maori Land Court  [84]
      Submissions on appeal  [85]
      Decision  [90]
Result  [97]

Introduction

[1]       Emily Rameka and Puti Puti Biel, the appellants, were removed as trustees of the Opepe Farm Trust (Opepe) by an order of Judge Harvey in the Maori Land Court made under s 240 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (the Act).[1]  Section 240 provides that the Court may make an order for removal, relevantly, if satisfied “the trustee has failed to carry out the duties of a trustee satisfactorily”.  The order for removal was made following an application to the Maori Land Court by the respondent, William Hall.  Mrs Rameka and Mrs Biel’s appeal to the Maori Appellate Court from Judge Harvey’s decision was unsuccessful.[2]  They now appeal to this Court.[3]

[1]Hall v Opepe Farm Trust (2010) 19 Waiariki MB 258 (19 WAR 258).

[2]Rameka v Hall – Opepe Farm Trust (2011) Maori Appellate Court MB 535 (2011 APPEAL 535).

[3]There is a right of general appeal to this Court: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, s 58A.

[2]       The parties accept that consideration of the appeal requires a two-stage inquiry.  The first question is whether Mrs Rameka and Mrs Biel breached their responsibilities as trustees in relation to three transactions.  The first of these transactions is Opepe’s investment in a mussel farm venture.  The second, a property development at Mangamawhitiwhiti, and finally, the purchase of land at Tauhara North.  The second question is whether, if the Court was satisfied that they failed to carry out the duties of a trustee satisfactorily in relation to one or more of these transactions, a removal order is appropriate. 

Background

[3]       Opepe is…