Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated v The Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 1882 [31 July 2020]

Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated v The Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 1882 [31 July 2020]

Court held plaintiffs failed to prove duress, undue influence or unconscionability as to the 1864 Waiuku Deed; the December 1864 confiscation was a lawful exercise of the 1863 Act (or validated by later statute); no private law fiduciary duty or constructive trust arose from the 19th century transactions in the broad form pleaded; the 1939 and 1959 takings under the Public Works Act 1928 were lawful for their stated purposes and s 19 preserved mineral rights (royalty entitlement) rather than creating a trust; the 1990 MOU was not an enforceable contract and did not give rise to a fiduciary duty; claims of legitimate expectation failed; all causes of action dismissed.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1882
Parties
First Plaintiff: Te Ara Rangatū o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated; Second Plaintiff: Richard Te Pou Minhinnick; First Defendant: The Attorney-General of New Zealand (on behalf of the Crown); Second Defendant / Second Applicant: New Zealand Steel Limited; Third Defendant: Waikato North Head Mining Limited; Counterclaim Defendant: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; First Applicant (civ 2014): New Zealand Steel Mining Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Declaratory/judicial Review Claims Relating to Historical Treaty, Property and Mining Rights / Judgment Following Trial on Liability (high Court)
Outcome
All plaintiff causes of action dismissed; judgment for Crown and NZ Steel on liability
Legal Topics
Confiscation, Compulsory Acquisition (public Works), Fiduciary Duty, Duress and Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargains, Legitimate Expectation, Constructive Trust, Mineral Rights/royalties, Iron and Steel Industry Act Licensing
Treaty of Waitangi Law Property Law Public Law Administrative Law Equity and Trusts Statutory Interpretation Resource/extractive Industry Law Confiscation +8 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Te Ara Rangatū o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated

First Plaintiff

Richard Te Pou Minhinnick

Second Plaintiff

The Attorney-General of New Zealand (on behalf of the Crown)

First Defendant

New Zealand Steel Limited

Second Defendant / Second Applicant

Waikato North Head Mining Limited

Third Defendant

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

Counterclaim Defendant

New Zealand Steel Mining Limited

First Applicant (civ 2014)

Procedural Posture

Declaratory/judicial Review Claims Relating to Historical Treaty, Property and Mining Rights / Judgment Following Trial on Liability (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1864 Waiuku Deed was voidable for duress, undue influence or as an unconscionable bargain
  2. 2 Whether the December 1864 confiscation was ultra vires the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863
  3. 3 Whether the Crown owed Ngāti Te Ata a private law fiduciary duty or other equitable duty at the time of the 1864 transactions

Ratio Decidendi

Court held plaintiffs failed to prove duress, undue influence or unconscionability as to the 1864 Waiuku Deed; the December 1864 confiscation was a lawful exercise of the 1863 Act (or validated by later statute); no private law fiduciary duty or constructive trust arose from the 19th century transactions in the broad form pleaded; the 1939 and 1959 takings under the Public Works Act 1928 were lawful for their stated purposes and s 19 preserved mineral rights (royalty entitlement) rather than creating a trust; the 1990 MOU was not an enforceable contract and did not give rise to a fiduciary duty; claims of legitimate expectation failed; all causes of action dismissed.

Court Disposition

All plaintiff causes of action dismissed; judgment for Crown and NZ Steel on liability

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
  • Leave reserved for Crown and NZ Steel to file costs memoranda within 20 working days and plaintiffs to file response within 10 working days; costs otherwise to be determined on the papers