Legal Research
Cases
Solomon v Attorney-General

Solomon v Attorney-General

Case [2024] NZHC 2385 26 August 2024

Jurisdiction

Standing

Declaration

Unconscionable Conduct

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-2023-485-162

[2024] NZHC 2385

UNDER Part 30 of the High Court Rules

AND UNDER

Section 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 for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

AND IN THE MATTER

of an application for a declaratory judgment

BETWEEN

MAUI SOLOMON, PAUL SOLOMON,

THOMAS LANAUZE, GRACE LEGROS

and SHARON WADSWORTH, as trustees of the MORIORI IMI SETTLEMENT

TRUST for and on behalf of IMI MORIORI Plaintiffs/Respondents

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant/First Applicant

DEENA WHAITIRI, MONIQUE CROON, MELODIE ERUERA-FRASER, JASON SEYMOUR, JOHN KAMO, DUANE

EMENY and THORNTON LANAUZE-

KING, as trustees of NGĀTI MUTUNGA O WHAREKAURI IWI TRUST for and on behalf of NGĀTI MUTUNGA O
WHAREKAURI

Second Defendants/Second Applicants

Hearing: 1 November 2023

Appearances:

C J Griggs, P C Kelly and E A Whiley for Plaintiffs/Respondents D A Ward and C C McKay for First Defendant/First Applicant

T J Castle and T A Castle for Second Defendants/Second Applicants

SOLOMON, SOLOMON, LANAUZE, LEGROS and WADSWORTH, as trustees of the MORIORI IMI
SETTLEMENT TRUST for and on behalf of IMI MORIORI v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2024] NZHC 2385
[26 August 2024]

Judgment: 26 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

Table of Contents

Para Nos

Introduction [1]

The context of this proceeding [6]

Moriori Imi and the Moriori Claims Settlement Act 2021 [9]

Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the AIP [16]
Treaty settlement processes [26]

The statement of claim [35]

The strike out applications [46]

Strike out: general principles [54]

Issues to be determined [63]

Preliminary issue [65]

Position of the parties in relation to strike out [70]

Discussion—strike out applications [76]
Applications for further initial disclosure, further particulars, and

security for costs [112]

Result [119]

Costs [124]

Introduction

[1] In this proceeding, Mr Maui Solomon and the other trustees of the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust, the post-settlement governance entity for imi Moriori (Moriori),1 apply for judicial review of the decision by the Minister of Treaty Negotiations to enter into an Agreement in Principle with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri (the AIP) for the purpose of settling the historical claims of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri under te Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty).

1 Imi is tā rē Moriori (the Moriori language) term for iwi.

[2] Moriori claim that the actions taken by the Crown to settle historical claims with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri breach their rights under the Treaty, international law and tikane Moriori.2 Moriori seek an order setting aside the AIP and a declaration that it would be unlawful for the Crown to enter into a settlement with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri containing certain redress. Moriori also seek declaratory relief relating to their customary rights and the Crown’s obligations under Article Two of the Treaty in relation to islands in the Rēkohu Group | Wharekauri |…

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 [2024] NZHC 2385
Case: [2024] NZHC 2385
Decision Date: 26 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Solomon v Attorney-General, the High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for judicial review and declarations brought by the trustees of the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust against the Attorney-General and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. The Moriori trustees challenged the Agreement in Principle (AIP) between the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, arguing it breached the Treaty of Waitangi and customary rights. The Attorney-General and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri sought to strike out parts of the claim, arguing it was not amenable to judicial review and violated the principle of non-interference.

The Court found that the claim for judicial review and the relief sought to set aside the AIP were struck out as they engaged the principle of non-interference, as they would require the Court to dictate the bounds of what could be negotiated by the Crown in the settlement process. However, the Court also held that the claim for declaratory relief, asserting customary rights and interests, could be repleaded if it avoided breaching the principle of non-interference. The Court granted leave to the Moriori trustees to amend their statement of claim accordingly.

The Court also declined to grant security for costs, noting that the trustees were entitled to be indemnified from trust property when acting reasonably on behalf of the trust. The Court directed a timetable for the filing of the amended statement of claim, defences, and the scheduling of the matter for hearing. Costs were ordered to follow the event.

Orders