New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mana whenua

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2023

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ORĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 74

Citation

[2023] NZHC 74
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to grant limited declaratory relief: (1) it declared that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei currently have ahi kā and mana whenua in relation to the area identified in Map 1 of the substantive judgment in central Tāmaki Makaurau according to the tikanga and historical tribal narrative and tradition of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei; and (2) it declared that the tikanga and historical tribal narratives and traditions of Marutūāhu Rōpū (other than Ngāti Pāoa), Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and Te Ākitai Waiohua do not currently recognise that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have ahi kā and mana whenua as c…
28 Apr 2022

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 843

Citation

[2022] NZHC 843
Court

High Court

The Court declined to grant the broad declarations sought by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei because the nature and scope of mana whenua and ahi kā in Tāmaki Makaurau is contested between multiple iwi, the Court must be cautious in adjudicating disputed tikanga beyond the tikanga and tribal narrative of the claimant, and while tikanga and Treaty principles inform Crown obligations in Treaty settlement negotiations the Crown is not bound to apply one iwi's tikanga as determinative; the Crown must, however, take reasonable steps to understand, recognise and actively protect tikanga in the Treaty settlement…
23 Sept 2021

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZSC 124

Citation

[2021] NZSC 124
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is allowed only to amend wording; the Environment Court's factual findings established insufficient evidence of ancestral connection by the Pascoes and by Poutama as a collective to the project area, so even if there were an error about the application of mana whenua or s 6(e) RMA it could not have been material; the earlier judgment is reissued with substituted paragraphs reflecting those factual findings.
15 Jul 2021

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZSC 87

Citation

[2021] NZSC 87
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Environment Court's determinations that the applicants lacked sufficient ancestral connection and that Ngāti Tama exercised mana whenua were findings of fact not susceptible to challenge on a question of law; consequently there was no substantial prospect of reversing the High Court. An extension of time was granted as the delay was limited and caused by a recall application but that did not justify granting leave.
15 Jul 2021

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZSC 87

Citation

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZSC 87
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Environment Court's findings that Poutama and the Pascoes lacked the requisite ancestral connection were findings of fact supported by the evidence, not errors of law; there was no real prospect the High Court decision could be reversed on the limited questions of law available on appeal and the s 75 criteria for a direct leapfrog appeal were not satisfied.
2 Mar 2021

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOR v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL & ORS [2021] NZHC 326

Citation

[2021] NZHC 326
Court

High Court

The recall application was dismissed because none of Poutama's grounds met the limited Nash criteria: the contested matters were either properly before the Environment Court or not raised on appeal, the post-judgment Waitangi Tribunal report did not constitute a relevant higher judicial authority or newly admissible evidence, and no 'special reason' existed to justify recall; therefore the High Court judgment must stand subject to appeal.
1 Dec 2020

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST AND D & T PASCOE v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 3159

Citation

(2020) 22ELRNZ 202
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Environment Court did not err in law by issuing an interim decision where final mitigation depended on the acquisition agreement and Further Mitigation Agreement with Ngāti Tama; the Court properly applied RMA principles (ss6,7,8) and had sufficient evidence to conclude Ngāti Tama held mana whenua and exercised kaitiakitanga for the project area while rejecting Poutama's competing factual claims; compensation and acquisition issues for the Pascoes lie in the Public Works Act process and the Environment Court reasonably concluded the haul road, storage…
25 Nov 2020

NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST v ATTORNEY-GENERAL NO 1 [2020] NZHC 3120

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3120
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave for cross-examination of witnesses on tikanga, historical matters and on the Crown's application of the Overlapping Claims Policy (including the factual witness Mr Macky) because the issues are central, complex and illustrative factual evidence would assist the declaratory exercise; the Court declined to appoint independent pūkenga as court experts because sufficient expert evidence was filed and appointment would risk prejudice and duplication; the Court directed expert witnesses on tikanga and historical matters to confer and produce joint witness statements before 5…
21 Oct 2020

NGĀTI MARU TRUST v NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2768 [21 October 2020]

Citation

(2020) 22 ELRNZ110
Court

High Court

The High Court held that while resource management decision-makers under the RMA do not have jurisdiction to confer, declare or affirm tikanga-based rights or primary mana whenua status as a matter of State law, consent authorities including the Environment Court do have jurisdiction to make evidential findings about the relative strength of iwi/hapū relationships where such findings are necessary and relevant to assessing cultural effects and to the formulation of lawful consent conditions; however such claims must be clearly grounded and defined according to tikanga and linked to specific r…
29 Jan 2020

KAMO v MINISTER OF CONSERVATION [2020] NZCA 1

Citation

[2020] 2 NZLR 746
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the factual dispute over mana whenua is central and unresolved, declaratory relief is inappropriate and premature where the Minister has not finalised vesting terms, and mana whenua and a Treaty relationship do not constitute 'property' for the purposes of NZBORA s21 so the claimed rights under ss18,20,21 cannot be established on the material before the Court.