12 Jun 2023
Leave to amend the application was granted because the amendments reduced or refined the claimed area and group composition without expanding the claim; however any claim of shared exclusivity is conditional on corresponding amendments by the other claimant groups, and the Court cannot grant recognition for areas beyond 12 nautical miles.
24 Feb 2023
Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendment refines the applicant from the iwi to a named whānau and reduces the application area, thereby not constituting a material change or abuse of process; the amendment does not create overlap with other applications, does not raise significant new factual issues, and gives rise to no prejudice or delay.
13 Feb 2015
The amended application is a permissible refinement of the original application because its essence remains unchanged; the amendments narrow and clarify the specified area and broaden beneficiaries in a way that does not convert the claim into a fundamentally different cause of action; the Court's statutory and procedural flexibility permits the amendment subject to compliance with the Act's notification and service provisions to avoid prejudice to interested parties.
9 Dec 2005
The Environment Court committed no error of law: it properly treated the application as discretionary, was entitled to have regard to the PARPC as varied under clause 16B and s104, properly exercised its weighting discretion under Part II including ss5,6,7 and 8 and HGMPA, correctly refused the out‑of‑scope mooring amendment, and any asserted errors would not have materially affected the outcome; appeal dismissed.