Legal Research
Cases
Staite v Kusabs

Staite v Kusabs

Case [2017] NZHC 416 13 March 2017

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Fiduciary Duty

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV 2009-463-888 [2017] NZHC 416

BETWEEN
PETER DANIEL STAITE, JEAN

TAIRAU-CARSTON, DEBORAH PAKAU, LEONIE REI NICOLLS AND BRUCE ANDERSON BAMBER AS TRUSTEES OF THE WHAOA NO 1

LANDS TRUST Plaintiffs and Ors

AND

ANDREW MARUTUEHU KUSABS, DONALD MAIRANGI BENNETT, JULIAN KUMEROA KEEPA AND WIREMU WAKA AS TRUSTEES OF THE TUMUNUI LANDS TRUST Defendants and Ors

Hearing: 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 July, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 August 2016

Counsel:

D G Chesterman and J P Koning for Plaintiffs
M S McKechnie and D Prasad for Defendants

Judgment:

13 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 March 2017 at 2.30pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Koning Webster, Tauranga Tim Kinder, Putaruru Counsel:
D Chesterman, Auckland
M McKechnie, Rotorua

STAITE v KUSABS [2017] NZHC 416 [13 March 2017]

CONTENTS

The nature of the claims  [1] The issues  [6] The No 8 Block: an historical perspective
(a)      Questions of mana whenua  [11]
(b)      Creation of the Whaoa Trust  [22] (c)      Creation of the Reservation Trust  [26] (d)      Creation of the Tumunui Trust  [31] The Mills lease – 1964–1989  [41] Negotiations to acquire the Mills lease  [44] The Tumunui lease – 1989–1994
(a)      The “proposed assignment” phase  [65]
(b)       The “new lease” negotiations  [75] (c) The subdivision process  [83] The easement           [110] The competing contentions  [119] Analysis: The Tumunui lease claims
(a)      The “self dealing rule”: introduction  [127]
(b)      Fenwick v Naera  [132] (c)      Limited beneficial interest exception  [147] (d)      Did Mr Moke breach his duty of loyalty?  [158] (e)      Relief against Mr Moke  [171] (f)       Relief against Tumunui Trust
(i)       Knowledge  [177] (ii)      Limitation and laches  [181] (iii)     Nature of remedy  [194]

Analysis: the Reserve claims
(a) The boundary and easement claims [216]
(b) The nature and purpose of a Māori reservation [223] (c) Roadway orders [237] (d) The boundary issue [240] (e) The easement certificate [251] (f) Should a remedy be granted? [257] Result [262]

The nature of the claims

[1] Mr Edward Moke died in 2003. At material times, he was a trustee of the

Whaoa No 1 Lands Trust (the Whaoa Trust),1 the Tumunui Lands Trust (the Tumunui

Trust)2 and the Ngāti Whaoa Māori Reservation (the Reservation Trust).3 The

1 The Whaoa Trust was constituted by an order of the Māori Land Court made on 5 March 1982 under s 438 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953. It continues as an ahu whenua trust by operation of s 354 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.
2 The Tumunui Trust was constituted by an order of the Māori Land Court, made on 8 December
1986, under s 438 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953. It continues as an ahu whenua trust by operation of s 354 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

Whaoa Trust and the Tumunui Trust are presently constituted as ahu whenua trusts, under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act…

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 Staite v Kusabs

Details

AGLC: Staite v Kusabs [2017] NZHC 416
Case: [2017] NZHC 416
Decision Date: 13 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Staite v Kusabs is a complex dispute involving multiple parties and a range of claims relating to the management of Māori land and trusts. The primary claims concern breaches of fiduciary duty by Edward Moke, a trustee of the Whaoa Trust, the Reservation Trust, and the Tumunui Trust, in relation to a lease agreement between the Whaoa Trust and the Tumunui Trust. The dispute also includes claims about the boundary between a Māori reservation and the surrounding land, as well as issues relating to an easement for access to the reservation. The court found that Mr Moke had breached his fiduciary duties by acting on both sides of the lease transaction, to the detriment of the Whaoa Trust and the Reservation Trust. The court ordered rectification of the lease to adjust the rent calculation and reserved judgment on the boundary and easement issues, urging the parties to pursue those matters in the Māori Land Court. The court emphasised the need for cooperation between the parties to address the complex and interrelated issues in the case.

Orders