Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC  47/2015
[2016] NZSC 62

BETWEEN

MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI
Appellant

AND

LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED
First Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

AND

WHEYLAND FARMS LIMITED
Interested Party

Hearing:	17, 18 and 19 August 2015
Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	M T Scholtens QC, A N Isac and J B Orpin for Appellant J E Hodder QC, B Gnanalingam, B J Maltby and, on 19 August 2015, S A Barker for First Respondent D J Goddard QC, J R Gough and S J Humphrey for Second Respondent A A Hopkinson for Interested Party
Judgment:	9 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is allowed in part.

B        The following declarations are made:

(i)        The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake. 

(ii)       The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake. 

CAll other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.

DThe restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.

E        Costs are reserved.  The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement. 

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Elias CJ and Arnold J	[1]
Glazebrook J	[147]
O’Regan J	[150]
William Young J	[193]

ELIAS CJ AND ARNOLD J
(Given by Arnold J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
Factual background	[4]
Facts primarily relevant to the error of law grounds	[5]
Facts primarily relevant to the bad faith ground	[27]
The sale and purchase agreement: cls 21 and 22	[33]
The proceedings	[35]
Issues in this Court	[39]
Evaluation	[42]
The context: land sales by Landcorp	[43]
The Crown’s error	[53]
The decisions and/or powers at issue	[56]
The reviewability of Landcorp’s decision to sell Whārere to Micro	[64]
Decisions of Ministers	[77]
March 2014 decision	[78]
December 2013 decision	[83]
Drawing the threads together	[98]
The bad faith claim	[100]
Relief	[110]
Section 21	[114]
An agreement has been concluded	[118]
Third party prejudice	[131]
Overall assessment	[138]
Result	[143]

Introduction

1. This is a judicial review case.  Judicial review is a supervisory jurisdiction which enables the courts to ensure that public powers are exercised lawfully.  In principle, all exercises of public power are reviewable, whether the relevant power is derived from statute, the prerogative or any other source.  The courts acknowledge limits, however.  These limits are reflected primarily in the notions…