New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandate and representation

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2023

DANELLA TAPAHINGA ROEBECK v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZSC 95

Citation

[2023] NZSC 95
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s 75(b) of the Senior Courts Act 2016; the dispute was properly directed to existing political/legislative mechanisms (the Māori Affairs Select Committee) given implementing legislation was actively before Parliament, and the substantive judicial review grounds failed on their merits (the Crown's acceptance of ratification was not irrational and other claims lacked substance).
30 Jul 2021

RE CLARKSON [2021] NZHC 1968

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1968
Court

High Court

The Clarkson application for customary marine title is dismissed because the applicants failed to establish that the applicant group as advanced holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga and has exclusively used and occupied it since 1840 without substantial interruption; crucially the applicants did not demonstrate the necessary representative mandate and their whānau land ownership abutting the area was not sufficient to displace the wider hapū-based tikanga and overlapping claims (notably Ngāti Kere). The Court therefore cannot make the CMT orders sought.
10 Aug 2016

LEWIS ATA TŪRĀHUI for and on behalf of ĀRAUKŪKŪ HAPŪ V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2016] NZCA 387

Citation

[2016] NZCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal

The Tribunal did not err in law: the 1996 Taranaki Report contained only provisional, high‑level findings and not final determinations that the hapū's claims were well‑founded; Āraukūkū failed to demonstrate the requisite irreparable prejudice or exhaust alternatives and unreasonably delayed or failed to engage with the mandated negotiator; the Tribunal lawfully exercised its broad discretionary control over urgency and allocation of limited resources; moreover pending Ngāruahine settlement legislation would settle many of the hapū's claims and remove Tribunal jurisdiction, so the appeal is d…
20 Apr 2010

MINHINNICK V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR HC HAM CIV-2010-419-413

Citation

openlaw-533c4b17_79ca_4774_807c_8cac29a22ab9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has no power to grant interim relief that would restrain a Minister from introducing a Bill or prevent Parliament from proceeding to a third reading and Royal Assent; parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of non-interference in parliamentary proceedings require dismissal of the ex parte application.
1 Mar 2010

DONNELLY V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-2614

Citation

openlaw-32463594_c601_4d17_a8d0_d5ff5c261430.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Tribunal's refusal to admit the affidavit and its limitation of participation were discretionary procedural decisions within the Tribunal's expertise and consistent with its practice note; no error of law was demonstrated because the Tribunal was entitled to manage hearing participation and timetable, the distinction drawn between applicants for urgency and supporters did not disclose a reviewable legal error, and the exigencies of an urgent, time-limited inquiry meant judicial intervention was not justified.
12 Jun 2009

POUWHARE AND ORS V KRUGER AND ORS HC WN CIV-2009-485-976

Citation

openlaw-a5157feb_6b22_4f6f_9d03_70dd433986f1.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 3.1 requires a governance entity to be properly appointed and have authority according to the relevant iwi's decision-making and tikanga; the Deed does not compel repetition of the cl 3.2 pre-settlement processes for post-settlement appointments; whether Ngai Tūhoe tikanga was followed raises factual and internal tikanga questions unsuitable for resolution in a declaratory judgment proceeding and therefore the declarations sought must be refused.

New Zealand Case Law

DANELLA TAPAHINGA ROEBECK v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZSC 95

RE CLARKSON [2021] NZHC 1968

LEWIS ATA TŪRĀHUI for and on behalf of ĀRAUKŪKŪ HAPŪ V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2016] NZCA 387

MINHINNICK V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR HC HAM CIV-2010-419-413

DONNELLY V THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-2614

POUWHARE AND ORS V KRUGER AND ORS HC WN CIV-2009-485-976