Legal Research
Cases
Solomon v Attorney-General

Solomon v Attorney-General

Case [2025] NZHC 1811 3 July 2025

Constitutional Validity

Separation of Powers

Statutory Interpretation

Treaty of Waitangi | te Tiriti o Waitangi

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Judicial Review

Legitimate Expectation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-000162

[2025] NZHC 1811

UNDER
Part 30 of the High Court Rules 2016 and s 2 of the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and

the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review of a decision made by or on behalf of the Minister of Treaty Waitangi Negotiations and an application for a declaratory

judgment

BETWEEN

MAUI ASHLEY SOLOMON, PAUL TE TEIRA SOLOMON, THOMAS HENRY LANAUZE, GRACE NGAROIMATA

LEGROS AND SHARON ANNE

ELIZABETH WADSWORTH as trustees of the MORIORI IMI SETTLEMENT TRUST

for and on behalf of IMI MORIORI Plaintiffs/Applicants

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant/First Respondent

DEENA NGAWHATA WAITIRI, MONIQUE CROON, MELODIE ERUERA- FRASER, JASON SEYMOUR, JOHN LAWRENCE KAMO, DUANE EMENY AND THORNTON LANAUZE-KING as
trustees of NGȂTI MUTUNGA O WHAREKAURI IWI TRUST for and on behalf of NGȂTI MUTUNGA O WHAREKAURI

Second Defendants/Second Respondents

Hearing: 18 June 2025

Counsel:

C J Griggs and P C Kelly for Applicants/Plaintiffs

D A Ward and U D Herath for First Defendant/First Respondent T J Castle and T I M Hautapu for Second Defendants/Second Respondents

SOLOMON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1811 [3 July 2025]

Judgment: 3 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Application for interim orders)

[1] This is an application for interim orders pending substantive determination of judicial review and declaratory relief proceedings. The context for the application is the Crown’s settlement negotiations under the Treaty of Waitangi | te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty) with two imi/iwi associated with the Chatham Islands,1 namely imi Moriori (Moriori) and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri (Ngāti Mutunga).2 Both imi/iwi claim to hold customary rights and interests in the Chatham Islands, and the Crown considers both to be Treaty partners.

[2] On 25 November 2022, the Crown (the first defendant) entered into an agreement in principle (AIP) with Ngāti Mutunga (whose representatives are the second defendants) to settle the iwi’s historical claims under the Treaty. Clause 4.3 of the AIP sets out a number of provisional Crown acknowledgements that may be included in the deed of settlement, including the following (the acknowledgement):

the Crown acknowledges that its annexation of Wharekauri in 1842 was carried out without any effort to consult with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. This represented a profound failure to give appropriate recognition and respect to the mana and te tino rangatiratanga of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri.

[3] Moriori, who achieved a Treaty settlement with the Crown in 2021,3 submit that this portion of the AIP impinges on its customary rights and interests, specifically its claim to mana whenua and tino rangatiratanga over the Chatham Islands.

[4] Mr Maui Solomon and the other trustees of the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust, the post-settlement governance entity for Moriori (the plaintiffs), apply for interim

1 Moriori refer to the islands as Rēkohu while Ngāti Mutunga/Māori refer to them as Wharekauri. As I do not wish to express a preference between the name given by each…

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.

Continue reading Solomon v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Solomon v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 1811
Case: [2025] NZHC 1811
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is an application for interim orders pending substantive determination of judicial review and declaratory relief proceedings. The Moriori Imi Settlement Trust, as trustees for and on behalf of Imi Moriori, seek an order that the Crown not take any further action to settle Ngāti Mutunga's Treaty claim to the extent that it purports to recognise that Ngāti Mutunga holds mana whenua and te tino rangatiratanga over the Chatham Islands. The application was opposed by the Attorney-General and Ngāti Mutunga. The Court was required to determine whether interim relief was reasonably necessary to preserve the applicants' rights or interests and whether the overall justice of the case favoured granting such relief. The Court held that the interim relief was not reasonably necessary to preserve the applicants' rights or interests. The Crown's acknowledgement in the Agreement in Principle (AIP) did not, by itself, confer legal rights or duties on the parties to a settlement deed or anyone else. The Crown's power to enter Treaty settlements could not override rights and liberties prescribed by law. The acknowledgement could not extinguish or abrogate any customary rights or interests of the applicants. The Court also found that the applicants' prospects of success on appeal were weak, and the overall justice of the case did not favour granting interim relief. The Court dismissed the application for interim orders and granted Māori TV's application to record sound and video at the hearing, finding that the principle of open justice should prevail.

Orders