Te Warena Taua v Tahi Enterprises Limited - [2021] NZSC 182

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 9/2021
[2021] NZSC 182

BETWEEN	TE WARENA TAUA, GEORGE HORI WINIKEREI TAUA, NGARAMA WALKER, HAMUERA TAUA AND MIRIAMA TAMAARIKI AS TRUSTEES OF TE KAWERAU IWI TRIBAL AUTHORITY First Appellants TE WARENA TAUA, GEORGE HORI WINIKEREI TAUA, NGARAMA WALKER, HAMUERA TAUA AND MIRIAMA TAMAARIKI AS TRUSTEES OF TE KAWERAU IWI SETTLEMENT TRUST Second Appellants
AND	TAHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED First Respondent DIANNE LEE Second Respondent

Hearing: Further memorandum:	19 November 2021 25 November 2021
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	K J Crossland, M K Mahuika and J S Langston for Appellants M Heard and C Upton for Respondents
Judgment:	15 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed to the extent that, by consent, the orders made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal granting discovery of the register of iwi members are set aside and the other orders set out below at [16] are substituted.

BLeave is reserved to the parties and any member of the iwi to apply to the High Court for modifications of these orders. The High Court may make such orders, including any additional or ancillary orders.

CThere is no order as to costs in this Court. The costs orders made in the Court of Appeal on the appeal in that Court in favour of the respondents are set aside. The respondents must pay the appellants costs in that Court calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The costs orders made in the High Court stand.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

This appeal concerns proceedings alleging breaches of contract, unjust enrichment and related claims brought by Tahi Enterprises Ltd (Tahi), the first respondent, and Ms Dianne Lee, the second respondent. Ms Lee is the sole shareholder and director of Tahi.[1] The claims relate to a joint venture agreement and other dealings between Tahi and members of Te Kawerau ā Maki (the iwi) during 2007 and 2008.
[1]Like the Court of Appeal, we refer to Tahi Enterprises Ltd (Tahi) and Ms Lee collectively as “Tahi” in respect of claims brought by both parties, and to Ms Lee alone in respect of claims in which she is the sole plaintiff.
Progress in the proceedings has stalled while the parties have sought to resolve issues about who is entitled to speak for whom. An earlier attempt to obtain representation orders was dismissed by Lang J.[2] The respondents, in the draft second amended statement of claim, had also advanced claims against fourth and fifth defendants. These were persons unable to be named. The respondents subsequently sought an order for disclosure of the names of the intended fourth and fifth defendants. The High Court ordered the disclosure of the names of iwi members over the age of 18 when the joint venture agreement was entered into.[3] Those orders were upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal.[4] The appellants were…

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 Te Warena Taua v Tahi Enterprises Limited 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: [2021] NZSC 182
Decision Date: 15 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Te Warena Taua v Tahi Enterprises Limited involved claims from Tahi Enterprises Ltd and Ms Dianne Lee, alleging breaches of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims against members of Te Kawerau ā Maki iwi. The dispute centred on a joint venture agreement and other dealings between Tahi and the iwi members during 2007 and 2008. The central legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal correctly upheld the High Court’s orders for the discovery of the register of iwi members. The Court was also required to consider whether representation orders could provide a more just and speedy means of resolving the controversy between the parties.

The Court found that the discovery orders were not the appropriate means to resolve the issues. Instead, the Court agreed with the parties' consent to representation orders, which would better serve the interests of justice by ensuring that the relevant parties could be brought before the Court to answer the formulated claims. The Court set aside the discovery orders and substituted them with representation orders, allowing the Settlement Trust Trustees to represent the iwi members in the proceedings. The Court also determined the costs, setting aside the Court of Appeal's costs orders in favour of the respondents and substituting them with costs in favour of the appellants. The costs orders in the High Court were left unchanged.

In summary, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the discovery orders were set aside and replaced with representation orders. The Court also addressed the costs, setting aside the Court of Appeal's costs orders and substituting them with costs in favour of the appellants while leaving the High Court's costs orders unchanged.

Orders