Stafford v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 2455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2010-442-000181

[2025] NZHC 2455

BETWEEN
RORE PAT STAFFORD

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearings:
2 April 2025 and 24 July 2025

(Further memorandum and / or submissions received 9, 15, 16 and 28 April, and 4 and 18 June, 1 August 2025)

(Heard at Wellington)

Appearances:

K S Feint KC, S M Hunter KC, M S Smith and H K Irwin-Easthope for Plaintiff

J R Gough, S M Kinsler, H T N Fong (via VMR), L Dittrich and L C Y Ewing (via VMR) for Attorney-General

Judgment:

27 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[Relief]

This judgment was delivered by me on 2025 at 2.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
K S Feint KC, Wellington
S M H Hunter KC, Auckland M S Smith, Wellington
Whāia Legal, Wellington Crown Law, Wellington
Meredith Connell, Wellington Meredith Connell, Auckland

STAFFORD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 2455 [27 August 2025]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Categorisation of land [7]

Valuation of replacement tenths [20]

Further deductions for land returned pursuant to Treaty settlements [26]

Deduction of land taxes [38]

Simple interest  [51]
Should simple interest be awarded?  [56]
What interest period should apply?  [71]
What is the appropriate interest rate?[85]

(a)       Dr Meade’s rates of interest  [93]
(b)       Statutory rates of interest  [98]
(c)       NZGS rates  [102]

Declaratory relief [104]
Result [112]

[1] This judgment addresses questions of relief following delivery of the substantive judgment in the proceeding on 30 October 2024.1 It should be read together with the substantive judgment, and the definitions and findings of fact made in that judgment are adopted here.

[2] Relief could not be fixed in the substantive judgment because further information was required, both as to the identification of land and the calculation of equitable compensation.2 The latter includes the current market value of the land which cannot be returned, and the value of the lost opportunity to benefit from the land. Rentals are a proxy for the lost opportunity to benefit from the land.

[3] The quantification of equitable compensation also depended on the application and calculation of simple interest. Despite the Crown conceding that simple interest was payable, I reserved judgment on this issue pending receipt of further submissions.3

[4] The parties have reached agreement on most of the further information required. This judgment determines the outstanding issues which have not been agreed. It also determines the application and calculation of simple interest.

1 Stafford v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 3110 [substantive judgment].
2 At [1012].
3 At [701].

[5] The exact acreage of land and the quantum of equitable compensation depends on the issues determined in this judgment. Information put before the Court in July 2025 suggests that approximately 8,000 acres of land is held on trust, and the monetary sum at issue ranges between approximately $264 million and $548 million, including interest. This is to be compared to the plaintiff’s claim…

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 Stafford v Attorney-General 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: [2025] NZHC 2455
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stafford v Attorney-General, the High Court addressed various relief issues following the substantive judgment on equitable compensation for the breach of fiduciary duties relating to the Tenths land. The central disputes included the categorisation of land held on trust, valuation of replacement Tenths, deductions for land returned under Treaty settlements, deduction of land taxes, and the application and calculation of simple interest.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Rore Pat Stafford, on the categorisation of land, finding that the land held on trust must correspond to the categories established by the Tenths scheme. It rejected the Crown's approach of using lower-value rural land to satisfy obligations for urban Tenths, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Tenths scheme's categorization. On the valuation of replacement Tenths, the court upheld its earlier decision, considering the values of the actual Tenths as the best evidence available, despite the Crown's concerns about variations in value.

The court declined the Crown's request for further deductions for land returned under Treaty settlements, adhering to the principle of finality and the specific direction given in the substantive judgment. It also dismissed the Crown's claim for deduction of land taxes from the gross rentals, finding it was too late to raise this issue after trial.

Regarding simple interest, the court awarded it, considering it compensatory and substitutive in valuing the lost opportunity to benefit from the land. It determined that interest should run from the date the proceedings were filed, balancing the exceptional complexity of the case against the risk of under-compensation. The appropriate interest rate was set at the New Zealand Government Stock (NZGS) rate, which most closely aligned with the unique characteristics of the trust fund and the objective of restoring what was lost.

Finally, the court agreed on the form of declaratory relief, including the identification of land held on trust, the transfer of land to appointed trustees, and the payment of a monetary sum. The final form of relief, including the updated land schedule and specified monetary sum, was to be determined based on this judgment and communicated through a joint memorandum from the parties.

Orders