Re Tipene

Case [2017] NZHC 2990


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV 2011-485-806 [2017] NZHC 2990

UNDER

the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai

Moana) Act 2011

IN THE MATTER OF

an application by DENIS WIREMU TIPENE for an order recognising customary interests in the common marine and coastal area

On the papers

Judgment:

4 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Table of contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] Further events.................................................................................................................................... [4] Submissions.......................................................................................................................................[11] The legislation .................................................................................................................................. [15] The Regulations ............................................................................................................................... [22] My assessment ................................................................................................................................. [25]

Result ................................................................................................................................................ [35]

Re Tipene [2017] NZHC 2990 [4 December 2017]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Tipene, on behalf of all Rakiura Māori with customary interests in the islands of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka (the applicant group), applied under the Marine  and  Coastal Area  (Takutai  Moana) Act  2011  for  an  order  recognising customary marine title (the customary marine title order) over a small marine and coastal area to the south west of Rakiura (Stewart Island).1     His application was successful.2  Who was to be the holder of the customary marine title order was left for further submissions and determination.

[2]      The judgment accepted Mr Tipene’s position that the owners of the houses on the two islands are the kaitiaki of the islands and that, in accordance with the tikanga of the islands, those present on the two islands make decisions on behalf of all those with customary interests in the islands, taking into account their views as appropriate. I also said:3

It would be consistent with the way decisions are made about other matters on these two islands for the beneficial owners who have houses on the two islands to make the decision about who holds the title. The holder should be defined in a way that encapsulates the concept that the person(s) who hold the title may from time to time change, just as the beneficial owners may change with succession.  These are matters upon which the parties are invited to make submissions.

[3]      This judgment concerns who is to be the holder of the customary marine title order.

Further events

[4]      Mr Tipene has provided an affidavit, dated 14 July 2017, about a hui which took place on 1 May 2017.   This hui was amongst the owners of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka who were on the islands at that time4  together with Jane Davis (the

pūkenga appointed by the Court) and her grandson, Renata Davis, who prepared

1      The area is a 200 m radius surrounding a rock in front of the landing area which provides the only access to Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka islands.

2      Re Tipene [2016] NZHC 3199, [2017] NZAR 599.

3 At [178].

4      Pohowaitai: Nash Norton, Pat Hutana, Maru Tau, Marty Hawkins, Grenvil Pitama, Eugene Riwaka, Oliver Dawson, Jeanette Norton, Felicity Phillips, Ngawini Riwaka, Makarini Rupene, Richard Ward, Paul Kemp and Kylie Waewae; Tamaitemioka: Denis Tipene.

minutes of the meeting.5   This hui was to discuss the judgment and in particular who should hold the order.

Continue reading Re Tipene

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Tipene [2017] NZHC 2990
Case
[2017] NZHC 2990
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Tipene concerned an application by Denis Wiremu Tipene on behalf of the Rakiura Māori with customary interests in the islands of Pohowaitai and Tamaitemioka for an order recognising customary marine title over a specified marine and coastal area. The applicant group sought for the customary marine title order to be held by the supervisors of the two islands appointed under the Tītī (Muttonbird) Islands Regulations 1978. The court had to decide who should hold the customary marine title order, considering the arguments presented by Mr Tipene, Te Rūnanga, and the Attorney-General. The court concluded that the Supervisors of the islands, appointed under the Regulations, were the appropriate holders of the customary marine title order, given their existing responsibilities, the process for their appointment, and the need for accurate contact details for the Marine and Coastal Area Register.

The court rejected the Attorney-General's submissions that the Supervisors could not hold the order because they might change over time, and that the holder must be a single person or an unincorporated legal entity. The court found that the Act permits the holder of a customary marine title order to be more than one person, reflecting the tikanga of the area, and that the existing appointment process under the Regulations ensures suitable and willing Supervisors. The Rakiura Tītī Committee agreed that the Supervisors should hold the order, and the court saw no need for it to be regularly involved in supervising the order when an appropriate process was already in place. The court ordered that the holder of the customary marine title order would be the Supervisors of Tamaitemioka and Pohowaitai, appointed under the Regulations, with the contact details for the Rakiura Tītī Committee to be entered in the Marine and Coastal Area Register. The court also noted that the particular area of the common marine and coastal area to which the order applies would be specified in the order for sealing, with any difficulties to be resolved within two weeks.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.