6 Apr 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the 1901 Land Transfer Act certificate did not include the mudflats and the Maori Land Court was required to treat those Land Transfer boundaries as definitive until they were validly corrected under the Land Transfer Act; the Supreme Court would not take a different view on that point.
23 Dec 2008
The Court exercised its power under High Court Rule 418 to formulate open questions for pre‑trial determination: (a) whether deposited plan 199214 correctly defines the boundary between the O Tito reserve and the adjoining land, and (b) if not, where the correct boundary is located. The Court allowed an open evidential approach (including expert evidence), confirmed that indefeasibility of title does not bar this inquiry, and reserved the question of costs for the trial judge.
30 Jan 2007
Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum of Settlement is not ambiguous and requires a broadly rectangular c.2.5 hectare section abutting the south-west boundary from Matangi Road across the Tukituki River to the rear south-western boundary, including a satisfactory elevated house site with proximate electricity; neither party's proposed plans (Annexures A, B or C) were acceptable and the Court adopts the boundaries and dimensions set out in Annexure D, directing the front Matangi Road boundary (W-V) be no less than 110 metres and the rear boundary (X-Y) be approximately 60 metres, with final adjustment…