IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE	
CIV-2017-485-167 CIV-2017-485-182 CIV-2017-485-218 CIV-2017-485-251 CIV-2017-485-266
CIV-2017-485-365 [2023] NZHC 1277	

UNDER	the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011	
IN THE MATTER OF

BY	an application by Ngāti Rarua Settlement Trust on behalf of Te Rūnanga a Rangitane o Wairau Settlement Trust, Tahuāroa-Watson Whānau, Ngāti Koata Trust, Te Rūnanga a Rangitane o Wairau Trust, Ngāi Tu-ahu-riri Hapū, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka a Maui
Trust	

On the papers:		
Counsel:	J Inns for Applicant	
Judgment:	26 May 2023	

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

The applicant

[1]	The Ngāti Rarua Settlement Trust (the Trust) is a Te Tau Ihu applicant which on 3 April 2017 filed an application to the Crown under s 95 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (the Act) for direct engagement in respect of two separate areas at the top of the South Island: firstly, from Glasgow Island to (and including) the Wairau river mouth on the East Coast; and secondly, from the beginning of the Nelson Boulder Bank to Kahurangi Point in the West Coast.

NGĀTI RARUA SETTLEMENT TRUST [2023] NZHC 1277 (26 May 2023)

[2]	Until recently little or no progress was made in relation to the application for direct engagement. The Trust did not make a parallel application to the High Court.

[3]	The Trust has identified five applications to the Court which, at least in part, overlap with its application for direct engagement. These are:

(a)	CIV-2017-485-167 – Te Rūnanga a Rangitane o Wairau Settlement Trust;

(b)	CIV-2017-485-182 – Henare Tahuaroa-Watson Whānau;

(c)	CIV-2017-485-251 – Trustees of Te Rūnanga a Rangitāne o Wairau Trust;

(d)	CIV-2017-485-266 – Ngāi Tu-ahu-riri Hapū; and

(e)	CIV-2017-485-265 – Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Maui Trust>

[4]	The Trust seeks leave to file Notice of Appearance to appear as an interested party in these overlapping applications.

[5]	The memorandum filed on behalf of the Trust stressed that this action by the Trust does not indicate its opposition to any of the overlapping applications and that it looks forward to constructive engagement with the various applicants.

[6]	The Trust wishes to participate in the overlapping applicants’ hearings only to extent of maintaining a watching brief so that it can stay informed as to how applications to the Court, which may impact on its Crown engagement application, are proceeding.

Grounds for leave

[7]	The Trust submits that no party will be disadvantaged by its application for leave to appear as an interested party because:

(a)	none of the overlapping claims were yet ready for timetabling towards a fixture;

(b)	that the Court has, in other cases, identified there is a significant potential for injustice if a hearing proceeds without overlapping Crown engagement only applicants having an opportunity to appear as an interested party; and

(c)	it is in the interest of all parties for such applications to have the opportunity to monitor progress of overlapping claims towards a hearing.

Analysis

[8]	The Court has in recent months granted a number of comparable applications.1

[9]	In this case, I am satisfied that a potential injustice would occur if the applicant was not permitted to participate as an interested party on a watching brief basis in the five applications set out above. Accordingly, that application is granted.

[10]	There is a further aspect to the Trust’s application. It is not presently clear to the Trust whether its application by way of direct engagement also overlaps with the High Court application filed by Ngāti Koata Trust.2

[11]	The Trust is therefore not filed an application for leave to participate as an interested party in respect of that matter but seeks leave to do so in the future if its discussions with Ngāti Koata reveal that there is in fact some measure of overlap. Such leave is granted.

[12]	I have granted this application on the papers without hearing from those applicants whose overlapping applications are involved because it appears that there is no prejudice to any of those applications as a result of the limited nature of the

1	See Ngāti Tu ki Ngāpuhi [2023] NZHC 745 (an application by Maia Maria Nova Honetana on behalf of Ngāti Tu ki Ngāpuhi for orders recognising Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights).
2	Re an application by Ngāti Koata CIV-2017-485-218.

watching brief as an interested party sought by the Trust. However, I reserve leave for any of the affected cross-applicants to file a Notice of Opposition which will then be dealt with on the papers. Any such Notice of Opposition is to be filed within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Oceanlaw New Zealand, Nelson