MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2017] NZHC 1759

MITCHELL v MITCHELL [2017] NZHC 1759

No serious question to be tried was established on the appointment, conflict or authority grounds. The hui of 27 November 2016 did not validly replace Trustee Kiri Mitchell because it was not a Ngati Whakaue hui-a-iwi called by the Assets Trust; George Mutu vacated office by non-attendance and was validly replaced by Murray under the deed; Mitchell's alleged conflict did not vitiate Trustee decisions because clause 7.7 excludes interests common to iwi members; and clause 3.1(d) authorised Trustees to negotiate incorporation and vesting arrangements for a replacement Te Puia entity. On balance of convenience and interests of justice an interim injunction should not be granted.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 1759
Parties
Applicant: Hamuera Walker Mitchell; Applicant: Hokimatemai Kahukiwa; Applicant: Peter Staite; Applicant: Veronica Butterworth; First Respondent: Te Kiri Whero Ewa Makareta Mitchell; Second Respondent: Malcolm Tukino Short; Second Respondent: Alexander James Wilson; Third Respondent: Warwick Morehu; Third Respondent: Rimini Denis Paul; Third Respondent: Katarina Kerema; Third Respondent: Donna Hall; Fourth Respondent: Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue Assets Trust; Fifth Respondent: Te Minita Whanaketanga Maori and the Associate Minister of Tourism; Sixth Respondent: The New Zealand Arts & Crafts Institute; Seventh Respondent: Bryce Murray
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts/māori Land (interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Hearing (application Dismissed 28 July 2017)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Trustees, Conflict of Interest (fiduciary Duty), Interpretation of Trust Deed, Interim Injunction Test, Vesting of Crown Owned Entity
Trust Law Māori Land Law Administrative Law Public/legislative Vesting Appointment of Trustees Conflict of Interest (fiduciary Duty) Interpretation of Trust Deed Interim Injunction Test +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamuera Walker Mitchell

Applicant

Hokimatemai Kahukiwa

Applicant

Peter Staite

Applicant

Veronica Butterworth

Applicant

Te Kiri Whero Ewa Makareta Mitchell

First Respondent

Malcolm Tukino Short

Second Respondent

Alexander James Wilson

Second Respondent

Warwick Morehu

Third Respondent

Rimini Denis Paul

Third Respondent

Katarina Kerema

Third Respondent

Donna Hall

Third Respondent

Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue Assets Trust

Fourth Respondent

Te Minita Whanaketanga Maori and the Associate Minister of Tourism

Fifth Respondent

The New Zealand Arts & Crafts Institute

Sixth Respondent

Bryce Murray

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts/māori Land (interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Hearing (application Dismissed 28 July 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two individuals were validly appointed as Trustees during relevant decision-making (appointment)
  2. 2 Whether a Trustee had a disqualifying conflict of interest vitiating Trustee decisions (conflict)
  3. 3 Whether the Trust Deed authorised the Trustees to negotiate and initial the Vesting Agreement (authority)

Ratio Decidendi

No serious question to be tried was established on the appointment, conflict or authority grounds. The hui of 27 November 2016 did not validly replace Trustee Kiri Mitchell because it was not a Ngati Whakaue hui-a-iwi called by the Assets Trust; George Mutu vacated office by non-attendance and was validly replaced by Murray under the deed; Mitchell's alleged conflict did not vitiate Trustee decisions because clause 7.7 excludes interests common to iwi members; and clause 3.1(d) authorised Trustees to negotiate incorporation and vesting arrangements for a replacement Te Puia entity. On balance of convenience and interests of justice an interim injunction should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • Costs reserved