New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collective redress

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2020

NORMAN v TŪPUNA MAUNGA O TĀMAKI MAKAURAU AUTHORITY [2020] NZHC 3425

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3425
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the applicants' judicial review application. It held the Maunga Authority's operational decision to remove exotic trees and undertake large-scale native revegetation was lawful when the Reserves Act is interpreted in light of the Collective Redress Act and the Authority's statutory mandate to restore indigenous values; no enforceable common-law or statutory duty to consult arose beyond the IMP and annual plan consultation undertaken; and Auckland Council lawfully exercised its RMA notification discretion (no public or limited notification required) based on comprehensive e…
19 Dec 2019

NGĀTI TE ATA v MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS [2019] NZCA 680 [19 December 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZCA 680
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Collective Redress Act s 120 is a statutory notice mechanism that removes identified land from the RFR regime by operation of the statute and does not require implying a separate disposal power; the Minister's decision to give s 120 notice was justiciable and was not unreasonable in the circumstances; the broader contention that the Crown cannot lawfully determine competing mana whenua claims is an extensive, evidence-dependent issue not properly raised or decided on this appeal.
17 Sept 2018

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2018] NZSC 84

Citation

[2018] NZSC 84
Court

Supreme Court

Majority held the claim is largely justiciable and reinstated the proceeding except insofar as specific declaratory relief sought was a direct challenge to the particular decisions whose implementation depends exclusively on proposed legislation (paragraphs (e) and (f)); courts may determine and declare existing customary and Treaty-derived rights and may review statutory administrative decisions (eg under s 120) provided the relief sought does not improperly interfere with parliamentary proceedings; the matter is remitted to the High Court for hearing on those surviving claims.
4 Dec 2017

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2017] NZCA 554

Citation

[2017] NZCA 554
Court

Court of Appeal

The letters and proposals under challenge were actions taken in the course of developing and proposing legislation; because any transfer or legal effect depends on Parliament enacting authorising legislation, the Executive actions were preparatory to legislation and non-justiciable. The courts will not grant declarations that would effectively decide or restrain proposed legislation; accordingly the High Court correctly struck out the claim and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Aug 2017

NGATI TE ATA v THE MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS [2017] NZHC 2058

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2058
Court

High Court

The Minister's decision was justiciable; s120 is a statutory duty/notice mechanism that, when its condition is met (land required for an individual Treaty settlement), removes land from the RFR regime by operation of the Act; no separate statutory 'power' to remove was required and the Minister's decision to require the early transfer properties for Ngāti Tamaoho's settlement was not unreasonable or made in bad faith, so the judicial review application is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

NORMAN v TŪPUNA MAUNGA O TĀMAKI MAKAURAU AUTHORITY [2020] NZHC 3425

NGĀTI TE ATA v MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS [2019] NZCA 680 [19 December 2019]

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2018] NZSC 84

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2017] NZCA 554

NGATI TE ATA v THE MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS [2017] NZHC 2058