Wairarapa Moana Ki Pou�kani Incorporation v Mercury NZ Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 93/2021
[2021] NZSC 183

BETWEEN

WAIRARAPA MOANA KI POUĀKANI INCORPORATION
Applicant

AND

MERCURY NZ LIMITED
First Respondent

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Third Respondent

NGĀTI KAHUNGUNU KI WAIRARAPA TĀMAKI NUI-Ā-RUA SETTLEMENT TRUST
Fourth Respondent

RAUKAWA SETTLEMENT TRUST
Fifth Respondent

TE KOTAHITANGA O NGĀTI TŪWHARETOA
Sixth Respondent

POUĀKANI CLAIMS TRUST
Seventh Respondent

RYSHELL GRIGGS AND MARK PHILLIP CHAMBERLAIN
Eighth Respondents

THE TRUSTEES OF THE RANGITĀNE TŪ MAI RĀ TRUST
Ninth Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	P J Radich QC and M K Mahuika for Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc J E Hodder QC, L L Fraser and R M A Jones for Mercury NZ Ltd M R Heron QC and H P Graham for Attorney-General M G Colson QC for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui‑ā‑Rua Settlement Trust F B Barton and A L Clark-Tahana for Raukawa Settlement Trust P V Cornegé, F E Geiringer, K H Dixon and A S Castle for Ms Griggs and Mr Chamberlain
Judgment:	15 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe extend time for the first respondent to apply for leave to cross‑appeal in SC 93/2021.

BWe grant leave to the first respondent in SC 93/2021 to cross‑appeal.

CThe approved question is whether the High Court’s decision on the first respondent’s claim in that Court was correct.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Kāhui Legal, Wellington for Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation
Chapman Tripp, Christchurch for Mercury NZ Ltd
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Waitangi Tribunal and Attorney‑General
Fitzherbert Rowe, Palmerston North for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin for Raukawa Settlement Trust
Annette Sykes & Co Ltd, Rotorua for Pouākani Claims Trust
Dixon and Co Lawyers, Auckland for Ms Griggs and Mr Chamberlain
McCaw Lewis Ltd, Hamilton for the Trustees of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard a case involving Wairarapa Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation, who sought to challenge the High Court's decision regarding the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Resource Management (Strategic Planning) Amendment Act 1997. Mercury NZ Limited, as the primary respondent, sought to defend the High Court's ruling, while the Waitangi Tribunal, Attorney-General, and various other parties were also involved in the case. The central dispute was about the interpretation of the Act, specifically in relation to the rights and obligations of the parties under the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of sustainable management.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the Resource Management (Strategic Planning) Amendment Act 1997, and the extent to which the Act incorporates principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The court was required to determine whether the High Court's interpretation of the Act was correct, and whether the rights of the parties under the Treaty of Waitangi were properly considered in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court had to address the question of whether the High Court's decision adequately balanced the principles of sustainable management with the rights and obligations of the parties under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The court granted leave for Mercury NZ Limited to cross-appeal the High Court's decision, and the approved question for the appeal was whether the High Court's decision on the first respondent's claim was correct. The court found that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the Act, and that the rights of the parties under the Treaty of Waitangi had not been adequately considered. The court concluded that the High Court's decision did not strike the appropriate balance between the principles of sustainable management and the rights and obligations of the parties under the Treaty of Waitangi. As a result, the court allowed the cross-appeal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established