Tau v Attorney-General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-534

[2021] NZHC 3122

BETWEEN
RAWIRI TE MAIRE TAU AND OTHERS

First Plaintiff

AND

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU

Second Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 8 November 2021

Counsel:

C F Finlayson QC, J W J Graham and R M A Jones for Plaintiffs M G Colson QC and L Theron for Defendant

S P Jerebine and C S S Woodhouse for Environmental Defence Society Inc in watching brief capacity

B J Matheson and N J Edwards for Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc in watching brief capacity

Judgment:

18 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(joinder of interveners)

TAU & OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3122 [18 November 2021]

[1] Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc (Federated Farmers) and the Environmental Defence Society Inc (EDS) seek to be joined as interveners in this proceeding. Those parties have liaised with the plaintiffs to agree the terms of their participation in the hearing.

[2] The plaintiffs and Federated Farmers filed a joint memorandum dated 21 September 2021 and I apologise for the delay in responding to that memorandum. I note the memorandum is not signed by counsel for the defendants but no opposition to the joinder of Federated Farmers has been raised.

[3] Accordingly, the orders sought at paras [11] and [12] of the joint memorandum of 21 September 2021 are made. Federated Farmers is accordingly joined as an intervener, subject to the restrictions in para [12] of that joint memorandum.

[4] To similar effect is the joint memorandum of the plaintiffs and the Environmental Defence Society Inc (EDS). Again, I must apologise for that memorandum not being actioned previously. The Crown has taken no steps to oppose the joinder of EDS as intervenor.

[5] Accordingly, by consent there are orders in terms of paras [10] and [11] of the joint memorandum of 19 August 2021. EDS is accordingly joined as intervener in this proceeding, subject to the restrictions on its participation set out at para [11] of the 19 August 2021 memorandum.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland (for Plaintiffs)
Copy to counsel: C F Finlayson QC, Barrister, Auckland (for Plaintiffs)
Crown Law, Wellington (for Defendant) Copy to:
Environmental Defence Society Inc, Auckland (for Party to be joined as Intervener)
Counsel: S P Jerebine, Barrister, Auckland (for Party to be joined as Intervener)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Rawiri Te Maire Tau and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu brought a legal action against the Attorney-General in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The plaintiffs sought to have two interveners, Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc and the Environmental Defence Society Inc, join the proceedings. The dispute centered on whether these interveners should be allowed to participate in the case, and if so, under what conditions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the interveners permission to join the proceedings and, if granted, what restrictions should be placed on their participation. This involved examining the terms of the joint memoranda filed by the plaintiffs and the interveners, as well as considering the lack of opposition from the defendant, the Attorney-General.

Associate Judge Lester reviewed the joint memoranda submitted by the plaintiffs and the interveners. The judge noted that the defendant had not raised any opposition to the joinder of the interveners, and therefore granted the requests to join the proceedings. The judge also set out specific restrictions on the interveners' participation, as outlined in the joint memoranda. These restrictions were accepted by all parties involved.

In summary, the court allowed the interveners, Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc and the Environmental Defence Society Inc, to join the proceedings, subject to the restrictions specified in the joint memoranda. This decision facilitated their participation in the case while ensuring that their involvement was appropriately managed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established