NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE v NGĀTI WĀHIAO CA592/2014 [2014] NZCA 592
The Court of Appeal held there were arguable questions of law arising from the Panel's interim award (as identified in the judgment) and accordingly granted special leave under art 5(6) of the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996; the matter is remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants' appeal on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 592
- Parties
- Applicant: NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE; Respondent: NGĀTI WĀHIAO
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Special Leave to Appeal / Permission Granted and Remitted to High Court
- Outcome
- Special leave to appeal granted; proceeding remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants' appeal on the identified questions of law
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal From Arbitral Award, Questions of Law, Beneficial Ownership Pre 1893, Crown Purchases Post 1893, Mana Whenua, S 348 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE
Applicant
NGĀTI WĀHIAO
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Special Leave to Appeal / Permission Granted and Remitted to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitral Panel erred by failing to make findings and give reasons on who were the beneficial owners of the lands pre-1893
- 2 Whether the Panel erred by failing to determine parties' claims to the lands having regard to pre-1893 beneficial ownership findings
- 3 Whether the Panel impermissibly allocated beneficial ownership according to broad notions of fairness rather than identifying legal entitlement
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held there were arguable questions of law arising from the Panel's interim award (as identified in the judgment) and accordingly granted special leave under art 5(6) of the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996; the matter is remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants' appeal on those identified questions of law in accordance with the applicants' leave application.
Court Disposition
Special leave to appeal granted; proceeding remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants' appeal on the identified questions of law
Orders
- Special leave to appeal granted pursuant to art 5(6) of the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1996
- Proceeding remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants' appeal on the identified questions of law in accordance with the application for special leave dated 17 October 2014
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU O NGĀTI WHAKAUE v NGĀTI WĀHIAO CA592/2014 [2014] NZCA 592 [4 December 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA592/2014[2014] NZCA 592BETWEEN NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTITAEOTU ME NGĀTI TE KAHU ONGĀTI WHAKAUEApplicantsAND NGĀTI WĀHIAORespondentHearing: 25 November 2014Court: Randerson, Harrison and White JJCounsel: D J Goddard QC and J P Kahukiwa for ApplicantsF E Geiringer for RespondentJudgment: 4 December 2014 at 11:30amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Special leave to appeal is granted to the applicants pursuant to art 5(6) of the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the refusal of the High Court by judgment dated 29 April 2014 to grant leave to appeal on questions of law arising from the interim award of an arbitral tribunal (the Panel) delivered on 7 June 2013.B The questions of law are:1 Did the Panel err in law in:(a) failing to make findings (supported by reasons) as to who the beneficial owners of the lands at issue were pre-1893?(b) failing to determine the parties' claims to the lands havingregard to those findings?(c) allocating beneficial ownership of the lands according to broad conceptions of fairness, rather than identifying the persons entitled to beneficial ownership of the lands?2 Did the Panel err in law in finding that Crown purchases of individualised interests in the lands after 1893 resulted in loss of the mana whenua of the hapu in respect of those lands?3 Did the Panel err in law by treating Crown purchases of individualised interests in land post-1893 as a relevant consideration in determining the dispute before it?4 Did the Panel err in law in its approach to s 348 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993?C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court to determine the applicants'appeal on the identified questions of law in accordance with the application for special leave dated 17 October 2014.D The applicants are entitled to costs against the respondent for a standard application on a Band B basis with usual disbursements.____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Corban Revell Lawyers, Auckland for ApplicantsPhil Mitchell, Wellington for Respondent