New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protected customary rights

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2023

WHAKATŌHEA KOTAHITANGA WAKA (EDWARDS) & ORS v TE KĀHUI AND WHAKATŌHEA MĀORI TRUST BOARD & ORS [2023] NZCA 504

Citation

[2023] NZCA 504
Court

Court of Appeal

Customary marine title under MACA exists where an applicant group currently holds a specified part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga and, tracing back to 1840, the group (or its predecessor) exclusively used and occupied that area without substantial interruption; exclusivity must be assessed through tikanga (including evidence of intention and capacity to control access and resource use), but lawful third‑party use (eg navigation, fishing, public access) does not automatically defeat a claim; applicants bear the burden of proving the positive statutory elements…
10 May 2023

TE HIKA O PĀPĀUMA (FURTHER AMENDED APPLICATION) [2023] NZHC 1109

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1109
Court

High Court

The further amended application is allowed because the three additional PCRs (communicating hapū mātauranga; exercising Mana Motuhake & Rangatiratanga; wānanga) are overarching refinements that do not extend the claimed area, do not introduce new boundaries, are sufficiently proximate to the originating application, and do not unfairly prejudice other parties or require substantial additional evidence; Mr George Matthews is confirmed as substituted applicant.
18 Apr 2023

TE PARAWHAU [2023] NZHC 804 ()

Citation

[2023] NZHC 804
Court

High Court

The Court confirmed the southern boundary of the Whangārei Coast hearing area at Bream Tail because that placement represented the best compromise balancing competing interests, excluded the Ngāti Manuhiri application area as intended, and because adverse effects on NHOT and Te Uri o Hau were unavoidable consequences of overlapping claims.
28 Mar 2023

NGĀI TŪMAPŪHIA A RANGI HAPŪ [2023] NZHC 627

Citation

[2023] NZHC 627
Court

High Court

The second amended originating application substituted a valid legal person (Ngāi Tūmapūhia-A-Rangi Hapū Incorporated), supported by a Certificate of Incorporation, thereby satisfying s101(f) of the Act and addressing the deficiency identified by the earlier judgment; no party was prejudiced, so the amendment is allowed.
10 Mar 2023

NGĀI TŪMĀPUHIA-Ā-RANGI HAPŪ [2023] NZHC 470

Citation

[2023] NZHC 470
Court

High Court

The amendment changing the named applicant to a committee was declined because the Act requires naming a 'person' (a natural person or a legal entity) as the holder of any order for the applicant group under s9(1) and s101(f); by contrast the expansion of the description of protected customary rights was allowed because it did not constitute an 'essentially different' or fresh cause of action and remained sufficiently proximate to the originally pleaded kaitiakitanga and customary gathering rights
24 Feb 2023

NGĀI TAKOTO IWI [2023] NZHC 301

Citation

[2023] NZHC 301
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to Ngāi Takoto to be joined as an interested party because (a) the applicant remedied the principal procedural defect by withdrawing the inconsistent 2022 map, (b) its participation was necessary for the Court to be fully informed and to achieve outcomes consistent with the MACA Act's purpose, (c) no prejudice or delay would result because no steps had been taken to bring the other applications to hearing, and (d) the Court may in its inherent jurisdiction permit late joinder where justified by interest, case law, and absence of prejudice.
27 Sept 2022

PAUL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 443

Citation

[2022] NZCA 443
Court

Court of Appeal

The nationwide application was struck out because it failed to meet mandatory s 101 requirements by not identifying the applicant iwi/hapū/whānau, by claiming the entire marine and coastal area rather than a particular area, and by not naming a proposed holder; objectively it was a protective device designed to circumvent the mandatory six-year statutory deadline in s 100(2) and therefore constituted an abuse of process; the subsequent amended claims that introduced new applicants constituted time-barred new claims and were also abusive, so the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirme…
3 Jun 2022

NEW ZEALAND MĀORI COUNCIL v TE KĀHUI TAKUTAI MOANA O NGĀ WHĀNUI ME NGA HAPŪ [2022] NZCA 224

Citation

[2022] NZCA 224
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because the Court concluded the Council is well placed to provide a pan‑Māori legal perspective on the tests for recognition of CMTs and PCRs, the issues are likely to arise on appeal, the Council limited its proposed role to legal issues (reducing risk of undue expansion or delay), and the delay in applying for leave was explained and not shown to cause unacceptable prejudice to respondents.
24 May 2022

RE EDWARDS (TE WHAKATŌHEA) NO. 6 [2022] NZHC 1160

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1160
Court

High Court

CRHL was granted leave to appear as an interested party because it became the legal owner of the relevant infrastructure and the holder of the resource consents after the due date, thereby having a vital interest in the recognition proceedings; no opposition was filed, and granting leave was appropriate to protect that interest.
29 Mar 2022

RE EDWARDS (TE WHAKATŌHEA) NO. 5 [2022] NZHC 608

Citation

[2022] NZHC 608
Court

High Court

Because evidence at the Stage Two hearing established that the Waiaua river mouth is wāhi tapu and that no whitebaiting occurred there, the continuity requirement under s51 for a Protected Customary Right was not met for that area; consequently the proposed amendment to include the river mouth in the PCR was declined.