TAHI ENTERPRISES LTD v TAUA [2019] NZHC 630

TAHI ENTERPRISES LTD v TAUA [2019] NZHC 630

Leave to appeal was granted because the Trustees demonstrated an arguable error of law on a matter of real significance: whether the correct threshold for a Norwich Pharmacal order is a "good case" or a lesser bona fide non-speculative belief, combined with the practical and significant effect of permitting joinder of some 300–400 additional defendants and the novel legal context (authority of rangatira, trustee indemnity, privacy of iwi registers) justified appellate consideration; accordingly leave to appeal and to cross-appeal were granted with timetabled filing directions.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 630
Parties
First Plaintiff: Tahi Enterprises Limited; Second Plaintiff: Dianne Lee; First Defendants: Te Warena Taua and Miriamata Maariki (executor of the estate of Hariata Arapo Ewe); Second Defendants: Te Warena Taua, George Horiwinikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki (trustees of Te Kawerau Ā Maki Iwi Tribal Authority); Third Defendants: Te Warena Taua, George Horiwinikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki (trustees of Te Kawerau Settlement Trust)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Discovery Before Action / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 56(3) Senior Courts Act 2016 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Trustees; leave to cross-appeal granted to the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Discovery Before Trial, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision, Joinder of Parties, Representation Orders, Privacy of Iwi Members, Trustee Indemnity
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts Privacy Law Discovery Before Trial Norwich Pharmacal Orders Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision Joinder of Parties +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tahi Enterprises Limited

First Plaintiff

Dianne Lee

Second Plaintiff

Te Warena Taua and Miriamata Maariki (executor of the estate of Hariata Arapo Ewe)

First Defendants

Te Warena Taua, George Horiwinikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki (trustees of Te Kawerau Ā Maki Iwi Tribal Authority)

Second Defendants

Te Warena Taua, George Horiwinikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki (trustees of Te Kawerau Settlement Trust)

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Discovery Before Action / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 56(3) Senior Courts Act 2016 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016
  2. 2 Proper threshold test for granting Norwich Pharmacal orders ("good case" vs bona fide/non-speculative)
  3. 3 Whether the register of iwi members should be disclosed and the extent of redactions for under-18s and unborn members

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the Trustees demonstrated an arguable error of law on a matter of real significance: whether the correct threshold for a Norwich Pharmacal order is a "good case" or a lesser bona fide non-speculative belief, combined with the practical and significant effect of permitting joinder of some 300–400 additional defendants and the novel legal context (authority of rangatira, trustee indemnity, privacy of iwi registers) justified appellate consideration; accordingly leave to appeal and to cross-appeal were granted with timetabled filing directions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Trustees; leave to cross-appeal granted to the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to the second and third defendants (Trustees)
  • Trustees to file and serve their appeal within 10 working days