TAHI ENTERPRISES LTD v TAUA [2018] NZHC 516

TAHI ENTERPRISES LTD v TAUA [2018] NZHC 516

The application for a representation order was dismissed because the plaintiffs pleaded actual authority that required proof of individual consent by each iwi member, meaning members could have different defences; representation would risk injustice by imposing potential personal liability on individuals who may not have authorised the agreements; several causes do not target iwi members and the relief sought could be obtained without appointing representative defendants; implied authority was not pleaded or adequately evidenced, so representative relief was not justified.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 516
Parties
First Applicant: Tahi Enterprises Limited; Second Applicant: Dianne Lee; First Respondents: Te Warena Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as executors of the Estate of Hariata Arapo Ewe; Second Respondents: Te Warena Taua; George Horiwinikerei Taua; Ngarama Walker; Hamuera Taua; Miriama Tamaariki as trustees of the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority; Third Respondents: Te Warena Taua; George Horiwinikerei Taua; Ngarama Walker; Hamuera Taua; Miriama Tamaariki as trustees of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Settlement Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil: Application for Representation Orders / Interlocutory Application (representation Orders)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, High Court Rules R 4.24, Agency (actual and Implied Authority), Unjust Enrichment, Joint Venture Agreements, Settlement Trust Indemnity, Specific Performance, Damages, Costs
Civil Procedure Trusts Contract Equitable Remedies Property Law Treaty Settlement Law Representative Proceedings High Court Rules R 4.24 +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tahi Enterprises Limited

First Applicant

Dianne Lee

Second Applicant

Te Warena Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as executors of the Estate of Hariata Arapo Ewe

First Respondents

Te Warena Taua; George Horiwinikerei Taua; Ngarama Walker; Hamuera Taua; Miriama Tamaariki as trustees of the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

Second Respondents

Te Warena Taua; George Horiwinikerei Taua; Ngarama Walker; Hamuera Taua; Miriama Tamaariki as trustees of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Settlement Trust

Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil: Application for Representation Orders / Interlocutory Application (representation Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a representation order under r 4.24 should appoint the Settlement trustees to represent c.400 iwi members
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs pleaded and could prove a common interest for all represented members
  3. 3 Whether individual members would have differing defences (actual authority) making representation unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a representation order was dismissed because the plaintiffs pleaded actual authority that required proof of individual consent by each iwi member, meaning members could have different defences; representation would risk injustice by imposing potential personal liability on individuals who may not have authorised the agreements; several causes do not target iwi members and the relief sought could be obtained without appointing representative defendants; implied authority was not pleaded or adequately evidenced, so representative relief was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for representation orders under r 4.24 dismissed
  • Second and third respondents ordinarily entitled to costs on a category 2B basis with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar; if counsel cannot agree file succinct memoranda for determination on the papers