William Russell v Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Maori

[2003] NZCA 127

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA262/02

BETWEENWILLIAM RUSSELL WATSON, JANET MIRIAM MCBREARTY AND DONALD ROY DENHAM

Appellants

ANDATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF TE PUNI KOKIRI, MINISTRY OF MAORI DEVELOPMENT

Second  Respondent

Hearing:26 June 2003

Coram:Gault P
Tipping J
Glazebrook J

Appearances:  J E Hodder and B A Davies for Appellants

M T Parker for Respondents

Judgment:26 June 2003 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY GAULT P

[1]       This is an appeal from a judgment in the High Court declining judicial review of decisions of the Crown and the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri, in relation to the application of the Maori Reserved Land Amendment Acts 1997 and 1998.  It concerns compensation rights of the appellants as lessees under a lease to which these statutory provisions apply, and in particular s3 of the 1998 Amendment Act.

[2]       The respondent, Te Puni Kokiri, gave notice under s3(1) requiring the appellants as the lessees to elect under s3(5) either to accept the amount of compensation specified in the notice or file an application to have compensation determined by the Land Valuation Tribunal.  Within the specified three month period the appellants did not take either of the steps permitted under subsec (5).  As a result the respondents took the position that pursuant to subsec (9) the appellants are deemed to have elected to take the compensation dictated by application of the Second Schedule to the 1997 Act.

[3]       The appellants maintain that they have not made the election and wish to pursue a belated application to the Land Valuation Tribunal.  In this proceeding they advanced five causes of action.  One was not dealt with by agreement and has been deferred.  The other four causes of action were dismissed in a judgment of France J delivered in the High Court at Wellington on 11 November 2002.

[4]       On this appeal, Mr Hodder for the appellants, has re-argued the four matters contending that on each the Judge reached the wrong conclusion.

[5]       We have considered each of the arguments and have had the benefit of full argument from Mr Hodder which we have tested in the course of the hearing.  He has not persuaded us that the Judge erred in her assessment either of the statutory provisions or the facts.

[6]       It would be only to repeat the reasoning set out clearly in the judgment of the High Court to detail the arguments and our reasons for rejecting them.  In this situation we are content to dismiss the appeal for the reasons set out in the judgment of France J with which we are in agreement.

[7]       The respondent is entitled to costs which we fix at $5,000 together with disbursements approved, if necessary, by the Registrar.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington, for Appellants
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondents