HATA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NO 2) [2023] NZHC 2919

HATA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NO 2) [2023] NZHC 2919

Stay application dismissed and r 10.15 preliminary questions refused: the court held it may determine existing legal rights (including rights informed by tikanga and the Treaty) even when a related Bill is before Parliament so long as the judgment does not intrude upon or prevent parliamentary proceedings; s11 Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 only bars court consideration where proceedings would seek to question or rely on parliamentary proceedings to establish liability or to support or resist relief; proposed separate preliminary questions were inappropriate because the issues of tikanga, iwi/hapū rights and Crown obligations are interdependent and unsuited to fragmented judicial review...

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2919
Parties
Applicants: TE RINGAHUIA HATA and TE RUAROGER RAKURAKU; First Respondent: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL; Second Respondents: GRAEME RIESTERER, ANAU APANUI, JASON KUREI, ERIN MOORE, DAVENGATAI, AUDREY GRACE-RENATA, MURIWAI KAHAKI, BRUCE PUKEPUKE, KEITA HUDSON, MANAPIRIHI, TAHU TAIA, PAREHUIA MAFI and ROBERT EDWARDS; Third Respondents: ROBERT EDWARDS, TAHU TAIA, BRUCE PUKEPUKE, KATE HUDSON, VAUGHAN PAYNE, GRAEME RIESTERER, ANAU APANUI and ERIN MOORE; Intervener: NGĀTI RUATAKENGA; Intervener: WAI 864 CLAIMANTS; Intervener: NGĀI TAMAHAUA HAPŪ COMMITTEE; Intervener: TE UPOKOREHE TREATY CLAIMS TRUST
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (part 30 High Court Rules) / Interlocutory Applications Decided (stay and Preliminary Question Applications)
Outcome
Both interlocutory applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay Application, Non Interference Principle, Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 S11, Declaration of Rights, Judicial Review, Tikanga, Treaty Settlements
Public Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Treaty of Waitangi Law Parliamentary Privilege Stay Application Non Interference Principle Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 S11 +4 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TE RINGAHUIA HATA and TE RUAROGER RAKURAKU

Applicants

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

GRAEME RIESTERER, ANAU APANUI, JASON KUREI, ERIN MOORE, DAVENGATAI, AUDREY GRACE-RENATA, MURIWAI KAHAKI, BRUCE PUKEPUKE, KEITA HUDSON, MANAPIRIHI, TAHU TAIA, PAREHUIA MAFI and ROBERT EDWARDS

Second Respondents

ROBERT EDWARDS, TAHU TAIA, BRUCE PUKEPUKE, KATE HUDSON, VAUGHAN PAYNE, GRAEME RIESTERER, ANAU APANUI and ERIN MOORE

Third Respondents

NGĀTI RUATAKENGA

Intervener

WAI 864 CLAIMANTS

Intervener

NGĀI TAMAHAUA HAPŪ COMMITTEE

Intervener

TE UPOKOREHE TREATY CLAIMS TRUST

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (part 30 High Court Rules) / Interlocutory Applications Decided (stay and Preliminary Question Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should stay proceedings because they interfere with parliamentary proceedings (non-interference principle)
  2. 2 Whether s11 Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 bars evidence or relief while a Bill is before Parliament
  3. 3 Whether the applicants can obtain declaratory relief about existing rights (tikanga and Treaty rights) while settlement legislation is before Parliament

Ratio Decidendi

Stay application dismissed and r 10.15 preliminary questions refused: the court held it may determine existing legal rights (including rights informed by tikanga and the Treaty) even when a related Bill is before Parliament so long as the judgment does not intrude upon or prevent parliamentary proceedings; s11 Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 only bars court consideration where proceedings would seek to question or rely on parliamentary proceedings to establish liability or to support or resist relief; proposed separate preliminary questions were inappropriate because the issues of tikanga, iwi/hapū rights and Crown obligations are interdependent and unsuited to fragmented judicial review...

Court Disposition

Both interlocutory applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application by Attorney-General for stay dismissed
  • Applicants' application for determination of separate preliminary questions under r 10.15 dismissed