Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd - [2014] NZHC 3402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-2915 [2014] NZHC 3402

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

BETWEEN

MITA MICHAEL RIRINUI Plaintiff

AND

LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED First Defendant

THE MINISTER FOR STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

Second Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Third Defendant

WHEYLAND FARMS LIMITED Intervener/Interested Party

Hearing: 26 November 2014

Counsel:

A N Isac, J P Koning and J B Orpin for Plaintiff
S A Barker and B Gnanalingam for First Defendant
J R Gough and S J Humphrey for Second and Third Defendants
P J Crombie for Intervener

Judgment:

22 December 2014

FINAL JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1] On 26 May 2014, I issued an interim judgment in this matter. The facts as they obtained at the time of that judgment are fully set out therein and I do not
propose to revisit them.1

1 Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 1128, [2014] NZCCLR 20.

RIRINUI v LANDCORP FARMING LIMITED & ORS [2014] NZHC 3402 [22 December 2014]

[2] There have been developments since that judgment, and in response to it. I will summarise those below. It is sufficient for present purposes to record that in my interim judgment I made orders:

(a) declaring the decision of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) to disclaim any interest of Ngāti Whakahemo in Whārere Farm to be invalid and of no effect;

(b)requiring the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to reconsider whether Whārere Farm should be dealt with wholly or partly under the Protocol in light of the fact that Ngāti Whakahemo has extant Treaty claims in respect of the Whārere Farm land;

(c) requiring the Minister whether personally or through OTS to consult with Ngāti Whakahemo with respect to that tribe’s possible acquisition of Whārere Farm whether outright or in joint venture with other interests;

(d)preventing the completion of the transfer of Whārere Farm to Micro Farms for two months from the date of this judgment to allow such consultations to proceed; and

(e) directing a further hearing in this matter prior to the expiry of the two month period.

[3] Subsequently the parties agreed that the two month freeze imposed by order (d) preventing settlement of the transaction between Landcorp and Micro Farms, could be extended by consent. Micro Farms’ nominee (Wheyland Farms Ltd) had entered into a lease with Landcorp until 30 May 2015, pursuant to cl 22 of the agreement for sale and purchase. That development took some of the urgency out of the situation.

[4] After the interim judgment, the plaintiff applied to amend his statement of claim to include a new allegation of bad faith – certain evidence in that respect

having come to the notice of counsel at a late stage. I granted the application and will address my reasons for doing so below.

[5] In the meantime, both parties have appealed my interim judgment and they have a fixture before the Court of Appeal on 10 February 2015.

[6] I note finally that Wheyland Farms…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 3402
Decision Date: 22 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 3402, presided over by Williams J, concerns a dispute between Ngāti Whakahemo, a Māori tribe, and Landcorp Farming Limited, a state-owned enterprise, over the sale of Whārere Farm. The core issue was whether Landcorp acted in bad faith when it sold the farm to Micro Farms/Wheyland, circumventing Ngāti Whakahemo's potential purchase. The court had to decide on the interpretation of an earlier order that required consultation with Ngāti Whakahemo regarding the farm's acquisition and whether bad faith was proven by the plaintiff's allegations.

Williams J found that the order requiring consultation with Ngāti Whakahemo was contingent on the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations determining that the farm was of potential interest for a future Treaty settlement. As the Minister concluded otherwise, the court ruled that the consultation order was not engaged. The court also declined to find bad faith in Landcorp's actions, despite evidence suggesting deceitful conduct by Landcorp's Board member, Traci Houpapa. Williams J concluded that there were plausible innocent explanations for Houpapa's silence, and even if bad faith were proven, it would not affect the outcome as Ngāti Whakahemo had no substantive rights against Landcorp.

The final orders of the court did not declare bad faith, non-compliance with the consultation order, or invalidate the sale agreement. However, Ngāti Whakahemo was granted holding orders pending the appeal hearing, extending the freeze on the sale to Micro Farms/Wheyland. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs due to the tribe's partial success and Landcorp's conduct.

Orders