MAIR AND ANOR V WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-1499

MAIR AND ANOR V WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-1499

The Tribunal erred in law by construing 'material' prejudice as limited to tangible or financial prejudice and failing to address separately and explicitly the intangible but significant prejudice caused by extinguishment of WAI 655 and potential loss of mana and mana whenua; accordingly the Tribunal's decision...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-1a2dc7f4_73f2_4bd0_9e89_cf2677c82c87.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: TE KENEHI MAIR; Second Plaintiff: NGAHINA MATTHEWS; First Defendant: THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL; Second Defendant: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Judicial Review Remitting Matter for Reconsideration
Outcome
Tribunal decision refusing urgency quashed; matter remitted to Tribunal to reconsider urgency application
Legal Topics
Urgency Applications to Waitangi Tribunal, Extinguishment of Claims by Settlement Legislation, Mandate Recognition and Representation, Assessment of Prejudice (material Vs Intangible), Jurisdictional Ouster Provisions, Remedies: Quashing and Remittal
Treaty of Waitangi Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Maori Land and Settlement Law Urgency Applications to Waitangi Tribunal Extinguishment of Claims by Settlement Legislation Mandate Recognition and Representation +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TE KENEHI MAIR

First Plaintiff

NGAHINA MATTHEWS

Second Plaintiff

THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

First Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Judicial Review Remitting Matter for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal misapplied its urgent inquiries practice note by treating 'material' prejudice as limited to tangible/financial prejudice
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider intangible prejudice including extinguishment of tribunal claim, loss of mana and mana whenua
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to Treaty of Waitangi principles relevant to urgency assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by construing 'material' prejudice as limited to tangible or financial prejudice and failing to address separately and explicitly the intangible but significant prejudice caused by extinguishment of WAI 655 and potential loss of mana and mana whenua; accordingly the Tribunal's decision refusing urgency was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Tribunal decision refusing urgency quashed; matter remitted to Tribunal to reconsider urgency application

Orders

  • Declaration that the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law in its urgency decision
  • Order quashing the Tribunal's decision refusing applications for urgency