New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Binding recommendations

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2019

MUTU AND RENATA v CHAIRPERSON OF THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 647

Citation

[2019] NZHC 647
Court

High Court

The Chairperson lawfully appointed the current panel under clause 5(1); the replacement provisions 5AA-5AC did not apply to the collective recusals which were institutional rather than personal circumstances; the reconstituted Tribunal may properly treat the rehearing as a new inquiry and must consider competing and overlapping claims before deciding on binding recommendations; accordingly the applicants' judicial review is dismissed.
12 Feb 2019

RAUKAWA SETTLEMENT TRUST v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 383

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 722
Court

High Court

The Tribunal misinterpreted s 17 of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Act 2014 by construing “for the benefit of Raukawa” to bar Raukawa from asserting a qualifying interest and being heard under s 8C of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Section 17 disapplies specified resumption mechanisms as to settled properties and prevents Raukawa invoking those mechanisms to obtain resumption or compensation, but it does not, by clear and unambiguous language, extinguish the right to participate and be heard on questions affecting mana whenua, customary rights and tikanga. The Tribunal's decision of 17 Octob…
19 Dec 2016

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA [2016] NZCA 626

Citation

[2016] NZCA 626
Court

Court of Appeal

Once the Tribunal finds the statutory prerequisites in s 8HB(1) are satisfied it is obliged to make an adjudicative decision as to remedy: either recommend return of the land (interim recommendation which becomes binding after 90 days if not settled) or recommend that the land not be liable to return (including the limited residual option of not clearing land because of competing claims); the Tribunal cannot avoid that duty by treating binding recommendations as a last resort, deferring to negotiations, or dismissing/adjourning solely because of complexity or competing claims without making…
12 Aug 2015

FLAVELL v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1907

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1907
Court

High Court

Court held the Tribunal erred in law by effectively treating binding recommendations as a remedy of last resort (imposing an additional onus) and by failing to consider making binding recommendations in respect of parts only of the lands sought; other alleged errors were dismissed; relief was discretionary and the Court deferred orders to allow applicant to elect whether to seek reconsideration by the Tribunal in light of this judgment.
22 May 2015

HARONGA v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1115

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1115
Court

High Court

The Tribunal misconstrued the binding resumption regime by deferring substantive s 8HB decisions to Crown settlement negotiations and by treating binding resumption as a 'last resort'; once claims were found well-founded and the Tribunal concluded redress should include return, the Tribunal was required to address resumption (including terms, conditions and recipients) rather than decline or adjourn on the basis of Crown settlement policy; the Tribunal's deference to irrelevant considerations amounted to legal error, so the Mangatū Remedies Report was quashed and remitted for reconsideration…

New Zealand Case Law

MUTU AND RENATA v CHAIRPERSON OF THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 647

RAUKAWA SETTLEMENT TRUST v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 383

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA [2016] NZCA 626

FLAVELL v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1907

HARONGA v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1115