New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tikanga

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2919
Court

High Court

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, i…
29 Jun 2023

TE WHĀNAU A KAI TRUST v GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZSC 77

Citation

[2023] NZSC 77
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed because there were no extraordinary and compelling circumstances to permit a direct appeal after the Court of Appeal had refused leave; the Trust's grounds largely repeated prior arguments and were not shown to be seriously arguable, including the jurisdictional proposition that an RMA plan can recognise tikanga-based proprietary rights in freshwater.
25 May 2023

HATA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 1255

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1255
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficiently strong arguable case given the Waitangi Tribunal's findings that the Crown's processes required modification but did not render hapū veto absolute; the relief sought would improperly interfere with parliamentary legislative processes; and the applicants' delay in bringing the challenge at the last moment made granting interim relief unfair and unjustifiable.
17 Apr 2023

SUSTAINABLE OTAKIRI INCORPORATED v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZSC 35 [17 April 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZSC 35
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted on specified points of law, including permission for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to challenge the High Court's exclusion of negative tikanga effects and an extension of time for that application, because the issues raised were proper legal questions to be considered on appeal and could be heard together; the application for leave to appeal on costs was declined because the Court considered the jurisprudence on awarding costs against public-interest litigants is not yet at a stage warranting this Court's intervention.
10 Oct 2022

TAU v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2604

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2604
Court

High Court

Tailored discovery orders are appropriate and granted with modifications: categories in Schedule 3 apply; for categories 6 and 7 disclosure is to be staged (stage one Cabinet papers, minutes and briefings to Ministers; stage two further documents referenced and requested); the date range for category 6 is limited to from 2003 (with parties to negotiate a focused sub-category addressing SOE reforms if necessary); DPMC is included as a relevant agency for category 7; the Crown's proposed case-study approach does not displace discovery; the application to transfer under s26(1) is refused.
4 Oct 2022

PROTECT AOTEA v THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY [2022] NZHC 2532

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2532
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the Environmental Protection Authority and Ports of Auckland on a category 2B basis with specified allocations and modest uplifts where respondents had to address issues unique to each proceeding; public interest did not justify departure from the loser‑pays principle because supporting groups failed to engage and the applicants' contested grounds did not materially increase respondents' costs; non‑compliance with timetable and abandoned/unmeritorious grounds did not materially increase expense and did not justify increased costs; no deferment of payment ordered absent specif…
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.
29 Jul 2021

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI AWA v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 354

Citation

[2021] NZCA 354
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal on five focused questions of law reformulated from the applicants' petitions because those questions raised arguable points of law concerning the scope of environmental effects (end-use plastic bottles), the role of Part 2 and Treaty considerations, and the correct legal characterisation of the activity under the district plan and s127; challenges to factual findings about tikanga evidence were not granted leave because identification of tikanga is principally a factual question for expert evidence or the Maori Appellate Court as explained in Takamore v Clark…
2 Jun 2021

COWAN v COWAN [2021] NZHC 1291

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1291
Court

High Court

The caveat was removed because the Court of Appeal condition requiring an undertaking as to damages was not substantially complied with and no evidence established the undertaking's value; however the Court found the respondents have a reasonably arguable beneficial interest under the 2002 Agreement and, as a protective measure, ordered caveat removal subject to the condition that net sale proceeds be held on interest‑bearing deposit in a solicitor's trust account and made consent orders as to specific performance to lie in court pending final determination.
2 Nov 2020

Re Collier [2020] NZCA 536

Citation

[2020] NZCA 536
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time for service was granted as delay was inconsequential and caused by counsel error without prejudice; leave to appeal against the High Court interlocutory judgment and costs judgment was declined because the High Court properly exercised its discretion, the proposed questions were overbroad and mixed factual determinative issues with tikanga so were not appropriate for binding reference to the Māori Appellate Court, no arguable error of principle was shown, and the costs awards were modest and within judicial discretion.