IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140009232 A20150003382 · 2016. 5. 12. · 108 Taitokerau MB 76 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT

108 Taitokerau MB 76

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

TAITOKERAU DISTRICT

A20140009232

A20150003382

UNDER

Sections 37(3), 239, 240, 338(7) and 338(8), Te

Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993

Regulation 3(f), Māori Reservation Regulations

1994

IN THE MATTER OF

Otakanini Māori Reservation

BETWEEN

PEARL HILL

Applicant

Hearing:

17 February 2015

25 May 2015

8 June 2015

(Heard at Auckland and Whangarei)

Judgment:

14 August 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... [1]

Background ........................................................................................................................ [2]

Issues ................................................................................................................................. [21]

Should terms of trust be set out approving the new trustee election process? .......... [22]

Should those people elected on 19 April 2015 be appointed as responsible trustees? .......... [29]

The Law ......................................................................................................................... [29]

Are those people elected as trustees broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries? ............ [34]

Do the elected trustees have the necessary ability, experience and knowledge to fulfil

their role? ...................................................................................................................... [55]

Should those trustees who have resigned or passed away be replaced? ..................... [65]

Should those trustees who have not resigned be removed? ......................................... [67]

The Law ......................................................................................................................... [67]

Have the affected trustees received sufficient notice that their removal is sought? ..... [74]

Should Carole Povey be removed? ............................................................................... [79]

Should Denise Hohepa-Hapeta be removed as trustee? ............................................... [97]

Should John Hohepa be removed?.............................................................................. [108]

Should Christopher Passell be removed? ................................................................... [115]

Should Dean Panui be removed? ................................................................................ [129]

Should Ratu Waata be removed? ................................................................................ [135]

What are the views of the beneficiaries? .................................................................... [140]

Decision ........................................................................................................................... [146]


Introduction

[1] Applications have been filed seeking the following orders with respect to the

Otakanini Māori Reservation (“the reservation”):

(a) The appointment of new trustees per ss 338(7) and 239 of Te Ture Whenua

Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”);

(b) The replacement of those trustees who have resigned or passed away per

ss 338(7) and 239 of the Act;

(c) The removal of those trustees who have refused to resign per regulation 3(f)

of the Māori Reservation Regulations (“the Regulations”) and s 240 of the

Act; and

(d) Setting out terms of trust approving a new process for the election of

trustees per s 338(8) of the Act.

Background

[2] The reservation was set apart over the Otakanini Church Site Block by notice in the

New Zealand Gazette on 26 October 1939:1

…as a Native Reservation for the common use of the owners thereof as a meeting-

place and as a church, meeting-house, or other communal building or for the

common use of the owners thereof in any other manner.

[3] The reservation is more commonly known as Haranui Marae. Although the Gazette

notice declares that the beneficiaries of the reservation are the owners, it was accepted by

all parties that the marae operates for the benefit of Ngāti Whatua Tuturu, a hapū of Ngāti

Whatua based at Otakanini.

[4] The current trustees of the reservation are Kura Foreman, Christopher Passell, John

William Hohepa, Carole Devereux (Povey), Awa Hudson, Mona Cribb, Dean Panui,

1 “Setting apart Native Land as a Native Reservation” (26 October 1939) 133 New Zealand Gazette 2969

at 2981.


Danielle Hood, Mei Hill, Pearl Hill, Ratu Waata, Donna Harris, Koromiko Richards,

Maramatanga Stead, Glenn Wilcox and Denise Hohepa-Hapeta.2

[5] On 4 September 2014 Pearl Hill filed an application per s 240 of the Act seeking

the appointment of Riki Manukau, Joseph Timoti, Tracey Hill, Arianna Hart, Tumanako

Povey, Cherith Vaha’akolo and Kapu Wilcox as responsible trustees.

[6] According to the application those persons are to be appointed in replacement of

Glen Wilcox, Mei Hill, Danielle Hood, Pearl Hill, Maramatanga Stead, Awa Hudson, Kura

Foreman and Ratu Waata who have resigned, and Mona Cribb who is deceased.

[7] The application also seeks the removal of Carole Deveraux (Povey), Dean Panui,

Christopher Passell, Denise Hohepa-Hapeta, John William Hohepa, Donna Harris and

Koromiko Richards as trustees.

[8] On 3 February 2015 I issued the following directions:

(a) The applicant is to serve a copy of the application, supporting material at least 7 days prior to the hearing on those current trustees who have not

resigned, namely Carole Devereux, Christopher Passell, Dean Panui,

Denise Hohepa-Hapeta, Donna Harris, John William Hohepa and

Koromiko Richards.

(b) The Registrar is to give notice of the hearing to the applicant and those current trustees who have not resigned referred to above.

(c) The applicant is to file the following further documents with the Court:

(i) Notice for the meetings that took place on 3 November 2013, 2 March 2014 and 16 March 2014.

(ii) Minutes of any trustees meeting where the new process for electing trustees was agreed to by the trustees.

(iii) The Charter for the Marae (if there is one).

[9] The application was first heard on 17 February 2015 in Auckland.3 The applicant

advised that Koromiko Richards had tabled her resignation. Mrs Richards was in

attendance. Sherie Povey appeared. She is the older sister of Donna Harris. Sherie

2 12 Taitokerau MB 247 (12 TTK 247).



advised that Donna had been residing in Australia for the past four years and she did not

object to being replaced. Sherie also advised that their brother Tumanako Povey is one of

the new trustees seeking appointment.

[10] At that hearing it was apparent that my directions had not been complied with. As

such, the application was adjourned and I directed the applicant to comply with those

directions.

[11] The application came back before me on 25 May 2015.4 Further evidence was filed

by those in support of, and those in opposition to, the application. That further evidence

had not been served on the other parties. The applicant also advised that in addition to

orders seeking the appointment, replacement and removal of trustees, they were also

seeking approval of a new trustee election process.

[12] As such, the application was adjourned for a second time and was set down for a

further hearing on 8 June 2015 in Whangarei. I also directed that:

(a) An application as per s 338(8) and any further applications were to be filed

and served by 29 May 2015;

(b) The additional material that had been filed by Doris Povey and Carole

Povey was to be served on the other parties/trustees by 29 May 2015; and

(c) Any evidence in response was to be filed and served by 3 June 2015.

[13] Those directions were complied with.

[14] A final hearing was then held on 8 June 2015.5 During the course of that hearing,

and with the consent of the parties, I amended the application pursuant to s 37(3) of the Act

to include applications pursuant to ss 239 and 338(7) of the Act for the appointment of the

new trustees in replacement of those trustees who had resigned or passed away.6



6 107 Taitokerau MB 111 (107 TTK 111) at MB 118.


[15] At the conclusion of the hearing I directed that any closing submissions were to be

filed by 15 June 2015.

[16] Between 10 June and 16 June 2015 further material was filed by Pearl Hill, Carole

Povey, Waata Rapana, Glenn Wilcox, Tui Cruickshank, Cherith Vaha’akolo, Marcus

Jacobsen, Glendith Samson and Margaret Kawharu. Additional material was then filed by

Carole Povey on 10 July and by Pearl Hill on 24 July 2015.

[17] A large amount of this further material filed does not contain closing submissions

but instead seeks to introduce new evidence. This includes the material filed by:

(a) Cherith Vaha’akolo;

(b) Margaret Kawharu;

(c) Glendith Samson;

(d) Marcus Jacobsen;

(e) Waata Rapana;

(f) The additional material filed by Carole Povey on 10 July 2015; and

(g) The additional material filed by Pearl Hill on 24 July 2015.

[18] The submission filed by Carole Povey dated 15 June 2015 contains a mixture of

closing submissions and new evidence.

[19] I appreciate that the parties were not represented by counsel. As such, the

distinction between closing submissions and new evidence may not be clear. However, at

the hearing on 8 June 2015 I emphasised that new evidence could not be introduced in

closing submissions.7

7 107 Taitokerau MB 111 (107 TTK 111) at MB 115and 260.


[20] As such, I have disregarded all of the new evidence that has been filed following

the hearing on 8 June 2015.

Issues

[21] The following issues arise in this proceeding:

(a) Should terms of trust be set out approving the new trustee election process?

(b) Should those people elected on 19 April 2015 be appointed as responsible

trustees?

(c) Should those trustees who have resigned or passed away be replaced?

(d) Should those trustees who have not resigned be removed?

Should terms of trust be set out approving the new trustee election process?

[22] The application to set out terms of trust proposed that there be seven trustees for the

reservation. Those trustees were to be elected along whānau lines as follows:

(a) Two trustees elected by the Kingi Ruarangi whānau;

(b) Two trustees elected by the Te Raihi Moki whānau;

(c) Two trustees elected by the Rapana whānau; and

(d) One trustee elected by the general beneficiaries of the reservation.

[23] The applicant argued that this recognised the three whānau above who, it is said,

have ‘ahi kaa roa’ in relation to Haranui Marae. The seventh trustee is to provide

representation for those whānau who do not whakapapa to the three whānau named above.

[24] This application caused considerable tension and conflict amongst the beneficiaries

of the reservation. Those in opposition to the application argued that this was an exclusive

approach and that it excluded many whānau who associate with Haranui Marae but who do


not whakapapa to the Kingi Ruarangi, Te Raihi Moki or Rapana lines. Most of the

evidence that was presented focussed on this issue.

[25] In the closing submissions filed by the applicant, Ms Hill states that:

Having discussed the selection process proposed for the selection of trustees in

more detail and following discussion with the Court, it is acknowledged that it is

not yet a final product and needs refinement.

Rather than attempt to finalise the selection process now, we suggest that this

would be the task of the newly appointed trustees to confirm the process. Those

trustees could then produce the new and more detailed process, in consultation with

the marae beneficiaries, which, if necessary can then be brought back to the Court

for approval.

For this purpose, it is suggested that the first task of the Elected Trustees shall be to

draw up, in agreement with the beneficiaries of the marae, a charter for the Māori

reservation, in accordance with clause 7 of the Māori Reservation Regulations

1994. This would also address the selection process matters.

[26] Ms Hill submits that this will also allow kaumatua to discuss matters of whakapapa

on the marae to satisfy the beneficiaries that any selection process does not exclude any

whānau representation.

[27] As such, the applicant is no longer seeking an order as per s 338(8) to confirm the

trustee election process. Rather, this is an issue that will be addressed in the Charter which

is to be drawn up by the trustees in consultation with the beneficiaries at a future date.

Given the tension and conflict which has ensued over this issue, this is a responsible

approach.

[28] As the applicant no longer seeks orders per s 338(8) of the Act this application can

be dismissed by consent.

Should those people elected on 19 April 2015 be appointed as responsible trustees?

The Law

[29] Section 338(7) of the Act states:

338 Maori reservations for communal purposes

...


(7) The Court may, by order, vest any Maori reservation in any body corporate

or in any 2 or more persons in trust to hold and administer it for the benefit

of the persons or class of persons for whose benefit the reservation is made,

and may from time to time, as and when it thinks fit, appoint a new trustee

or new trustees or additional trustees.

[30] Section 239 of the Act applies to Māori reservations by reason of s 236 of the Act.

Section 239 states:

239 Addition, reduction, and replacement of trustees

(1) The Court may at any time, on application, in respect of any trust to which

this Part applies, add to or reduce the number of trustees or replace 1 or

more of the trustees.

(2) The Court may amend the Court's records for a trust if a trustee dies and the

Court receives a death certificate for the deceased trustee.

(3) In exercising the powers in subsections (1) and (2), the Court may order the

vesting of land or other assets of the trust in any person or persons (with the

consent of that person or those persons) upon the terms of the trust,

whether or not that person was previously a trustee.

[31] Section 222(2) of the Act states:

222 Appointment of trustees

…

(2) The Court, in deciding whether to appoint any individual or body to be a

trustee of a trust constituted under this Part of this Act,—

(a) Shall have regard to the ability, experience, and knowledge of the

individual or body; and

(b) Shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the

appointment of that individual or body would be broadly

acceptable to the beneficiaries.

[32] In Paora – Te Tii Waitangi A (Waitangi Marae), Judge Ambler had to consider the

application of s 222(2) of the Act in relation to the appointment of trustees to a Māori

reservation.8 Judge Ambler found that:

9

[55] In my view, notwithstanding that strictly speaking s 222(2) of the Act does

not apply to the appointment of trustees of a Māori reservation, the Preamble, s 2

and s 17 of the Act point the Court to the same approach, namely, that individuals

8 Paora – Te Tii Waitangi A (Waitangi Marae) (2015) 94 Taitokerau MB 134 (94 TTK 134).

9 Ibid at [55].


need to have the relevant ability, experience and knowledge to perform as trustees

and that they need to be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries of the Māori

reservation.

[33] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal examined the considerations relevant to

the appointment of trustees as per s 222:10

[51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is

obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual

concerned. In considering those issues, the Court will no doubt have regard to such

matters as the nature and scale of the assets of the trust concerned and the issues the

trust is facing. The importance of the views of the beneficial owners of the trust is

underlined by s 222(2)(b) which forbids the Court from appointing a trustee unless

the Court is satisfied that the appointment of that person will be broadly acceptable

to the beneficiaries.

[52] It may be putting the matter too highly to say that the Court should only

depart from the views of the owners in rare circumstances. The Court is not bound

to appoint the leading candidates resulting from an election by the beneficial

owners. A candidate who has strong support from the owners might be regarded by

the Court as unsuitable through lack of ability, experience and knowledge or for

other reasons. For example, the existence of conflicts of interest might be relevant

or the need to obtain a suitable spread of skills amongst the trustees. Nevertheless,

the Court would ordinarily give substantial weight to the views of the owners as

demonstrated by the outcome of the election. If the Court is minded not to appoint

the leading candidates as elected by the owners, it must still be satisfied the

requirements of s 222(b) are met. For that purpose, the Court would need to have

appropriate evidence before it. The outcome of an election at a meeting of owners

is a useful means of obtaining such evidence.

[53] It will be plain from these observations that the discretion of the Court is

not broad and unfettered. Of course, the Court may take into account such other

matters as it thinks fit but the exercise of its discretion will be primarily guided by s

222(2)...

Are those people elected as trustees broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries?

[34] There are a number of hui that have been held on Haranui Marae concerning the

election of trustees. As I am no longer being asked to approve terms of trust many of those

hui are no longer relevant. However some comment is required on recent hui in order to

put the election into context.

[35] On 3 November 2013 an AGM was held at the marae. The AGM was advertised in

the Norwest News on 17 October 2013. The items on the agenda in the newspaper notice

were:

10

Clarke v Karaitiana [2011] NZCA 154 at [51] to [53].


To elect 12 trustees

6 Tupuna Owners

6 Beneficiaries

[36] This related to an early proposal of electing trustees along whānau lines based on

the six owners named in the court records for the Otakanini Church Site Block. Under this

proposal six trustees would be elected, one by each of the whānau descending from those

owners. A further six trustees were to be elected by the general beneficiaries of the

reservation.

[37] At the AGM on 3 November 2013 discussion ensued and a new election process

was proposed. This consisted of the seven proposed trustees as set out in paragraph [22]

above.11

A motion was passed that those in attendance agreed with the new election

process.

[38] Following this AGM various whānau met amongst themselves to nominate trustees

along whānau lines pursuant to this new election process.

[39] A further hui was held on the marae on 1 December 2013. Once again notice was

placed in the Norwest News which stated:

Whanau to present their representative for new Marae trust board of (7) members in

total…

[40] The minutes for the meeting on 1 December 2013 record that:

(a) Joe Timoti and Tumanako Povey had been nominated for the Ruarangi

whānau;

(b) Ariana Hart and Kapu Wilcox had been nominated for the Moki whānau;

(c) Cherith Vaha’akolo and Tracey Hill had been nominated for the Rapana

whānau; and

11

Being two from the Te Raihi Moki whānau, two from the Rapana whānau, two from the Kingi Ruarangi

whānau and one other.


(d) Rik Manukau had been nominated for the ‘other’ trustee position.

(“the elected trustees”)

[41] There was no resolution passed approving these nominations. The minutes simply

record that the “Chair acknowledges names received”.

[42] Carole Povey and others in opposition to the application objected to this process.

They argued that the meeting on 03 November 2013 was not sufficiently advertised as the

newspaper notice referred to the original trustee election process and not the new election

process. Mrs Povey argued that the new election process was only raised on the day of that

hui.

[43] Mrs Povey also objected to the new election process itself as she and others

considered that it excluded a number of whānau who associated with Haranui Marae.

[44] Finally, Mrs Povey argued that the meetings held by the whānau representatives

were exclusive, that not all of the relevant whānau were included, and that the whānau

representatives were not supported by all members of that whānau.

[45] In Trustees of Te Ngae Farm Trust v Trustees of the Ngāti Rangiteaorere

Koromatua Council – Te Ngae Farm Trust, Judge Coxhead considered an election of

trustees which was conducted by appointing whānau representatives under a ‘koromatua’

system.12

Judge Coxhead found:13

[25] ... While there is no objection to this process, the Court must still be

satisfied that Mr Heke, as a proposed trustee, has sufficient support of the

beneficiaries as a whole. This necessarily extends wider than Mr Heke’s immediate

whānau. The normal method of ensuring such acceptance is for the appointment of

proposed trustees to be considered at an Annual General Meeting...

[26] It is difficult to sustain an argument that Mr Heke’s appointment would be

broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries when his appointment has not been

considered at an AGM and there was no evidence of beneficiary support outside of

the immediate Heke whānau.

12

Trustees of Te Ngae Farm Trust v Trustees of the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Koromatua Council – Te Ngae

Farm Trust (2015) 118 Waiariki MB 92 (118 WAR 92). 13

Ibid at [25] to [26].


[46] As such, there is merit in the concerns raised by Carole Povey as to the nomination

of the elected trustees by the whānau representatives.

[47] However, these issues were cured by the hui held on 19 April 2015. This meeting

was advertised in the New Zealand Herald on 30 March 2015. The items on the agenda in

the notice were:

To ascertain an agreed consensus of the new process for electing trustees.

To discuss the resignation and re-standing of all current trustees.

To present names of nominees elected to stand as whānau trust representatives.

To discuss application A20130009857 and 238 report.

To formalise a Charter for Haranui Marae.

[48] At the hui on 19 April 2015 the following resolution was moved.

I move that the 7 trustees whose names have already gone forward to the MLC

namely Kapu Wilcox, Arianna Hart, Joe Timoti, Tumanako Povey, Cherith

Vaha’akolo, Tracey Hill and Riki Manukau be accepted.

[49] A vote was then conducted. Thirty eight voted in favour of the resolution with

seven against.

[50] As such, while there may be valid concerns around the manner in which the elected

trustees were initially nominated by certain whānau representatives, these issues were

cured at the hui on 19 April 2015 where the election was confirmed by the majority of

those beneficiaries in attendance.

[51] Those in opposition to the application have also raised concerns as to the manner in

which the hui was conducted on 19 April 2015. They allege that the meeting was unruly

and that a number of personal attacks were made by those in attendance against those

trustees who have refused to resign. Sadly, such an atmosphere is not surprising. It is clear

that there is a fractious and divisive relationship between those who support the application

and those who oppose it. This was evident during the hearings before me where, on a

number of occasions, I had to intervene due to sniping remarks being made by supporters

from both sides. I have no doubt that those tensions would be amplified during meetings


on the marae. Unfortunately, it appears that this is common place in relation to this

reservation.

[52] Despite this, I cannot look past the fact that there was a clear resolution passed on

19 April 2015 where 84% of those who voted supported the appointment of the elected

trustees. This level of support is also consistent with views expressed at previous hui,

notwithstanding issues around notice and process at those earlier meetings.

[53] Carole Povey accepted that the majority of beneficiaries voted in favour of the

elected trustees. When asked how the Court should treat that resolution Mrs Povey

accepted that the resolution is evidence supporting the appointment of the elected trustees

in replacement of those trustees who have resigned or passed away. Mrs Povey also

advised that she did not consider that this resolution was sufficient to replace those trustees

who have refused to resign.14

[54] For these reasons I find that the elected trustees are broadly acceptable to the

beneficiaries. The deficiencies as to notice and process at the earlier hui was cured by the

notice for, and resolution passed on, 19 April 2015. That resolution demonstrates

substantial support for the appointment of the elected trustees. This is consistent with the

views expressed at earlier hui. While there may have been tensions and hostility displayed

at the hui on 19 April 2015, sadly this appears to be common place for this reservation. In

my view that does not detract from the overall support shown that the elected trustees

should be appointed as responsible trustees of the reservation.

Do the elected trustees have the necessary ability, experience and knowledge to fulfil their

role?

[55] The elected trustees have all completed and signed the Māori Land Court trustee

consent forms.15

In doing so they have confirmed that they:

(a) Do not have any civil or criminal convictions for dishonesty or any other

offences that may disqualify them from being a trustee;

14

Taitokerau MB 111 (107 TTK 111) at MB 227 and 240. 15

Māori Land Court “Consent to be appointed as a trustee” Document B1.


(b) Are not currently an un-discharged bankrupt or subject to any proceedings

under the Insolvency Act 2006;

(c) Are not subject to a compulsory detention order, or do not suffer from any

condition covered under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and

Treatment) Act 1992;

(d) Are not subject to any property orders made under the Protection of

Personal Property Rights Act 1988;

(e) Have not previously been removed as a trustee of any trust by the High

Court under the Trustee Act 1956 or by the Māori Land Court under section

240 of the Act;

(f) Undertake to familiarise themselves with the trust order/deed or regulations

associated with the trust; and

(g) Will properly carry out their duties as a trustee.

[56] The elected trustees have also filed individual personal profiles setting out their

respective backgrounds, experience and ability. Those profiles demonstrate that the elected

trustees have a good range of skills and experience that will assist with the administration

of the reservation. This includes experience in management roles, sitting on various

committees, ability in Te Reo Māori, knowledge of whakapapa and history, organisational

skills, commercial experience and qualifications, and for one an active role as a kuia of the

marae.

[57] In addition to this, at the hearing on 8 June 2015 a number of witnesses gave

evidence that the elected trustees have been carrying out the day-to-day operations on the

marae, as a marae committee, pending their formal appointment. Those witnesses all gave

evidence that the elected trustees have been carrying out those tasks to a high standard and

that they consider that the elected trustees have the necessary ability, experience and

knowledge to fulfil the role of responsible trustees.


[58] There was no real challenge to the elected trustees’ suitability other than to Kapu

Wilcox.

[59] Carole Povey alleged that Kapu Wilcox received land interests from the estate of

her half-sister Moehau when she was not entitled to do so. Mrs Povey argued that Kapu

promised to return these lands but instead transferred them to her son, Glen Wilcox. Mrs

Povey contends that Chris Passell and his family have suffered significant loss as a result.

[60] Chris Passell did not give evidence in this proceeding. There were no court records

or other documents filed which support the allegations made by Mrs Povey. Mrs Povey

did not even elaborate on her allegations or advise how she says Kapu Wilcox wrongfully

acquired these land interests.

[61] In short, while Mrs Povey has made these allegations she has not filed any

substantive evidence to prove the allegations or to show that Kapu Wilcox is not suitable to

be appointed as a responsible trustee.

[62] In Tito v Tito the Court of Appeal had to consider an order by the Māori Appellate

Court appointing trustees to an Ahu Whenua Trust.16

The appellant alleged that one of the

newly appointed trustees, Aroha Tito, was unsuitable as she had received trust money but

was not a beneficial owner. No evidence was filed to support that allegation. The Court of

Appeal held:17

In the absence of any evidence, we cannot take this matter any further.

[63] The same applies in the present case. In order to establish that Kapu Wilcox is not

suitable to fulfil the role of a responsible trustee, Mrs Povey should have set out her

allegations in detail and provided evidence in support. Vague allegations against Mrs

Wilcox’s character without any supporting evidence are not sufficient.

[64] For these reasons I find that the elected trustees have the necessary ability,

experience and knowledge required. I also find that they are suitable and should be

appointed as responsible trustee of the reservation.

16

Tito v Tito [2012] NZCA 493. 17

Ibid at [51].


Should those trustees who have resigned or passed away be replaced?

[65] Of the existing trustees Glenn Wilcox, Mei Hill, Danielle Hood, Pearl Hill,

Maramatanga Stead, Awa Hudson, Kura Foreman and Koromiko Richards have resigned.

Donna Harris is living overseas and does not object to being replaced. Mona Cribb is

deceased.

[66] There is no objection to the replacement of these trustees and they should be

replaced accordingly.

Should those trustees who have not resigned be removed?

The Law

[67] Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations states:

3 Trustees

Any trustee for the time being appointed, by order of the Court, in relation to

any reservation,—

…

(f) May be removed from office by order of the Court made at any time

and shall cease to hold office from such time as the order shall

specify:

[68] Section 240 of the Act also applies to the removal of trustees of a Māori

reservation.18

Section 240 states:

240 Removal of trustee

The Court may at any time, in respect of any trustee of a trust to which this

[Part] applies, make an order for the removal of the trustee, if it is satisfied—

(a) That the trustee has failed to carry out the duties of a trustee

satisfactorily; or

(b) Because of lack of competence or prolonged absence, the trustee is or

will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily.

18

Uruamo - Ongarahu B (1994) 3 Taitokerau Appellate Court MB 230 (3 APWH 230) and Perenara v

Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki MB 233 (10 AP 233).


[69] Before a trustee can be removed from office he or she must receive sufficient notice

to ensure that they have a proper opportunity to prepare and present any available

defence.19

[70] In Perenara the Māori Appellate Court held:20

As a general approach the Court should proceed with caution when asked to

consider removal. Conversely we also endorse the notion that immediate

removal should follow obvious abuse, failure or malfeasance. However, as

pointed out by Mr Kahukiwa, the test to apply is not one confined to obvious

abuse, failure or malfeasance. Rather the legislation may, depending on the

circumstances of each case, also require consideration of trustees’ performance to

assess whether they have carried out their duties satisfactorily. In considering

performance, the rules of natural justice must be observed, the appropriate legal

thresholds as provided for in the Act, the Trustee Act 1956 and the Reservation

Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any

positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance.

[71] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held:21

[28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of

the Act. That section refers to the following:

(a) Carrying out the terms of the trust:

(b) The proper administration and management of the business of the

trust:

(c) The preservation of the assets of the trust:

(d) The collection and distribution of the income of the trust.

[29] As we have noted, these statutory duties are not exhaustive and general

trustee law principles are also relevant. Further, the trust order applicable to the

trust may add other responsibilities. The relevant obligations of trustees have been

described by the Maori Appellate Court in these terms:

a) A duty to acquaint themselves with the terms of trust;

b) A duty to adhere rigidly to the terms of trust;

c) A duty to transfer property only to beneficiaries or to the objects of

a power of appointment or to persons authorised under a trust

instrument or the general law to receive property such as a

custodian trustee;

d) A duty to act fairly by all beneficiaries;

19

Ibid. 20

Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki MB 233 (10 AP 233) at MB 241. 21

Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 at [28] to [30].


e) A duty of trustees to invest the trust funds in accordance with the

trust instrument or as the law provides;

f) A duty to keep and render accounts and provide information;

g) A duty of diligence and prudence as an ordinary prudent person of

business would exercise and conduct in that business if it were his

or her own;

h) A duty not to delegate his or her powers not even to co-trustees;

i) A duty not to make a profit for themselves out of the trust property

or out of the office of trust: Garrow and Kelly Law of Trusts and

Trustees (sixth edition, pp 523–582 inclusive).

[30] The settled approach in the Maori Appellate Court in applying s 240 is to

make an assessment of these standard duties together with what the Court has

described as:

… the broader approach having regard to the special nature of Maori land

trusts and the provisions of [the Act]. Thus the prerequisite for removal of a

trustee was not a simple failure or neglect of duties, but a failure to perform

them satisfactorily. Accordingly an assessment of the trustee’s performance

was essential when applying s 240.

We endorse this approach as part of the first stage inquiry.

[72] In Bramley v Hiruharama Ponui Inc - Committee of Management the Māori

Appellate Court stressed the importance of measuring unsatisfactory conduct against the

principles of the Act as found in the Preamble and section 2.22

[73] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal adopted this approach with respect to trustee

removal as per section 240. The Court of Appeal found:23

...we agree that in determining whether removal is appropriate the Court will need

to consider the impact of the trustee’s actions on the beneficiaries and any

apprehension of risk to the assets.

Have the affected trustees received sufficient notice that their removal is sought?

[74] This application was filed per section 240 of the Act which expressly relates to the

removal of trustees for cause.

22

Bramley v Hiruharama Ponui Inc - Committee of Management (2006) 11 Waiariki Appellate MB 144

(11 AP 144). 23

Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 at [33].


[75] Pursuant to my directions, a copy of the application and supporting material was

served on the five trustees whose removal is sought, namely, Carole Povey, Christopher

Passell, Dean Panui, Denise Hohepa-Hapeta and John William Hohepa.24

[76] Three hearings have been held including a full day hearing in Whangarei on 8 June

2015. Carole Povey and Denise Hohepa-Hapeta have attended all three hearings and gave

evidence on 8 June 2015. John William Hohepa attended the hearing on 25 May 2015.

[77] Chris Passell and Dean Panui have not attended any of the hearings. However, both

are on the Court’s notification list for this proceeding. They have both been sent notice for

all three Court hearings and they have both been sent a copy of the Court minute for all

three hearings.

[78] As such I am satisfied that all five trustees have had sufficient notice that their

removal is being sought, and they have had sufficient opportunity to present any defence.

Should Carole Povey be removed?

[79] The applicant argues that Carole Povey should be removed as a trustee on the

following grounds:25

(a) Mrs Povey sent a letter on behalf of the reservation trustees concerning a

call out by the armed offenders squad without the trustees’ knowledge or

authorization;

(b) Mrs Povey filed an application seeking to enforce the obligations of trust as

per section 238 of the Act without the consent or knowledge of all trustees;

(c) Mrs Povey disagreed with a decision to remove a tree on the reservation and

supported an application to the Court seeking an injunction to prevent the

tree from being felled;

24

See 106 Taitokerau MB 137 (106 TTK 137). 25

See submissions for the applicant filed by Doris Povey dated 3 June 2015.


(d) When Mrs Povey and others used the marae in April 2015 Mrs Povey

demanded access to the administration office; and

(e) Mrs Povey has shown abusive and disrespectful behaviour to kaumatua at

the marae.

[80] In April 2011 the Armed Offenders Squad were called out to the Otakanini district

where they conducted a door to door search of homes on Haranui Road. At a trustee

meeting Carole Povey expressed concern over the actions of the police and likened it to the

Tuhoe raids in the Ruātoki community. The trustees agreed that Carole was to draft a letter

expressing concern in relation to the operation.

[81] The draft letter was prepared and tabled with the trustees but the trustees resolved

that the letter should be re-drafted with the assistance of Ani Hawke. It is alleged that

Carole then sent the letter without the trustees’ knowledge or authorisation.

[82] In response Carole agreed that she was to re-draft the letter with Ani Hawke. She

further states that following the re-drafting, the letter was to be sent. She claims that she

did so as was agreed at the trustee meeting.

[83] The minutes for the trustee meeting where this was discussed have not been filed.

Nor have I been provided with a copy of the letter that was sent. Ani Hawke did not give

evidence and there was no allegation that Ms Hawke was not involved in the re-drafting.

[84] It appears that the applicant takes issue with the fact that the re-drafted letter was

not submitted to the trustees for final approval before it was sent. Mrs Povey argues that

the trustees agreed that the letter would be sent following the re-drafting.

[85] Without a copy of the minutes from the relevant trustee meetings I am unable to

determine this issue. Even if Mrs Povey was required to obtain final sign off from the

trustees before sending the letter, this may not be sufficient to warrant her removal. Not

every failure or neglect of duty will justify removal. Even where a breach occurs I need to

consider whether there is any reasonable explanation or excuse. In this case there may have


been a simple misunderstanding as to the process to be followed. There is no evidence of

any loss to the reservation as a result of the letter.

[86] As such I am not satisfied that removal is justified over this issue.

[87] The applicant also takes issue with Carole filing an application as per s 238 of the

Act without first seeking the authority or approval of the other trustees. Section 238 relates

to the enforcement of the obligations of trust. Any trustee or beneficiary can file an

application as per s 238 of the Act.26

Such an application does not have to be approved or

authorized by the trustees.

[88] Generally such applications are filed where the trustees have breached their duties

and the applicant is seeking to enforce those obligations. In such circumstances it would

be illogical if such an application had to first be approved by the trustees. This ground has

no merit.

[89] There is a dispute between the existing trustees as to what steps should be taken

with respect to a large tree on the reservation. Both sides accept that the tree is in poor

health. Carole Povey and others consider that the tree only requires pruning. The

applicant and others consider that the tree should be removed.

[90] On 1 April 2015 Denise Hohepa-Hapeta filed an application seeking an urgent

injunction preventing the tree from being felled. This application was heard in Whangarei

on 14 April 2015.27

Carole Povey appeared in support of the application. An interim

injunction was granted prohibiting the elected trustees from removing the tree. That

injunction did not prevent or restrain the responsible trustees from taking any such action

provided that any decision to do so was properly authorised.

[91] Again this is not a proper ground for removal.

26

See s37(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. 27

100 Taitokerau MB 111 (100 TTK 111).


[92] The applicant alleges that while using the marae with other trustees, Mrs Povey

‘demanded’ access to the administration office. Even if this is accurate this is a trivial

issue and does not justify removal.

[93] Finally it is alleged that Carole Povey has exhibited abusive and disrespectful

behaviour to kaumatua during marae hui. The applicant states that at the hui on 19 April

2015 Mrs Povey stated that Kapu Wilcox and Arianna Hart “…are not toto tuturu to the

Moki line and therefore should not be the Moki representatives…”

[94] This relates to the trustee selection process for which orders are no longer sought.

One of the concerns raised by Mrs Povey was that Kapu Wilcox had been nominated as the

whānau representative for the Moki whānau when she is a whāngai and is not related by

blood to that whānau line.

[95] Whether Mrs Wilcox is the appropriate person to act as a whānau representative for

the Moki whānau is not an issue that I need to determine in this case. Despite that, the

status of whangai is often debated. Whether a person is a whāngai who is entitled to

succeed to Māori land is a common issue raised before this Court. I do not consider that

Mrs Povey raising this issue is inherently abusive or disrespectful. Such issues are often

raised on the marae and ideally they should be resolve there. I certainly do not consider

that this justifies Mrs Povey being removed as a trustee.

[96] For these reasons I do not consider that the grounds raised by the applicant justify

Carole Povey being removed as a trustee. These are largely trivial issues and do not

warrant the extreme step of removal.

Should Denise Hohepa-Hapeta be removed as trustee?

[97] In around 2011 Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta lived in the training centre on the marae. She

advised that both her husband and her mother had recently passed away and she was “a bit

lost”. She stated that she moved to the marae as there was “something broken” and she

thought staying there would help to resolve it. She stated that “[t]he marae is a well spring

of the people especially when you are down and out”.


[98] Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta also advised that while staying there she helped to clean up the

marae, she prepared rongoa and provided mirimiri for kaumatua and kuia, and she assisted

with a children’s kapa haka group. She also advised that she paid koha to cover costs

while she was staying there.

[99] Generally trustees must not make a profit out of the trust property. As part of this

obligation trustees must not deal with trust property for their own benefit. That includes

occupying trust property. This obligation is founded on the rule that a trustee must not put

him or herself in a position where their duty and interest may conflict.28

[100] In the present case the applicant states that this occupation was “permitted by the

current trustees”.29

As such it appears that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta was authorised to stay

there. The minutes for the trustee meeting where this was agreed have not been filed.

There is no allegation that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta participated in, or influenced, the decision

or that she acted in conflict with her duties when occupying the marae. In fact the

applicant does not seek that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta should be removed due to occupying the

marae. From her evidence Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta also provided services for marae

beneficiaries and contributed koha to cover her costs while staying there.

[101] While obtaining profit or personal benefit from trust property may constitute

sufficient grounds for removal there is insufficient evidence for any such finding to be

made in this case.

[102] The actual ground on which the applicant seeks removal is an allegation that Mrs

Hohepa-Hapeta was growing and selling marijuana from the marae and was evicted on that

basis.

[103] No evidence was provided to support this allegation. Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta

completely rejected the allegation. She advised that she was preparing rongoa and had

bottles of spirits with chillies and kawakawa that she was using to assist kaumatua and kuia

28

See Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 and Re Thompson’s Settlement; Thompson v Thompson [1985] 2

All ER 720. 29

Submissions for the applicant dated 3 June 2015.


with emphysema. She advised that people may have misconstrued what she was doing in

terms of the rongoa she was providing.

[104] Te Waru Hill gave evidence in support of the application. Te Waru confirmed that a

report came to the trustees that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta had been dealing drugs on the marae.

However, Mr Hill confirmed that he did not see this personally. Te Waru Hill also

confirmed that he found alternative accommodation for Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta and so she left

the marae. This contradicts the allegation that Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta was evicted over drugs.

[105] If a trustee had been growing and dealing drugs from the marae that may well

constitute sufficient grounds for removal. Once again, there is insufficient evidence to

make such a finding in this case.

[106] The applicant also seeks Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta’s removal for filing the application

seeking an injunction concerning removal of the tree. As set out above this is not a proper

ground for removal.

[107] As such I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence, or sufficient grounds, for

Mrs Hohepa-Hapeta to be removed as a trustee.

Should John Hohepa be removed?

[108] The applicant alleges that Mr Hohepa invited a reporter to cover a Court hearing in

2010 concerning the appointment of trustees to the reservation. It is further alleged that Mr

Hohepa did so without seeking authority from his fellow trustees.

[109] I agree that it may not always be appropriate to involve the media in relation to

issues concerning the marae. However, this does not provide a sufficient ground for

removal.

[110] The applicant alleges that in around 2003 Mr Hohepa also filed an application with

the Court as per s 238 of the Act without first obtaining approval from the other trustees.

As set out above, this does not constitute sufficient grounds for removal.


[111] The applicant alleges that while preparing the s 238 report Mr Hohepa sought

reimbursement for travel expenses to Whangarei. It is alleged that the costs sought were

excessive and that proper receipts were not provided. The trustees agreed to pay a lesser

amount in reimbursement for expenses.

[112] No evidence has been filed showing the costs that were claimed or what the

applicant alleges is excessive. In any event, the excessive costs were not paid but rather a

reduced amount. It also appears that the reduced amount was approved by the trustees.

[113] Trustees are entitled to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses. While the initial

costs claimed may have been high, those costs were not paid. The reduced costs were

approved by the trustees. As such it cannot be said that Mr Hohepa profited from his

position.

[114] This is not a proper ground for removal.

Should Christopher Passell be removed?

[115] The applicant alleges that the armed offenders squad incident in 2011, which

resulted in the letter being sent from Carole Povey, related to actions taken by Mr Passell.

It is alleged that Mr Passell was in a paddock on Haranui road near the marae, that he was

under the influence of methamphetamine, and that he discharged a firearm in a reckless

manner. It is also alleged that this was in close vicinity to children who were on the marae.

Once again, no evidence has been filed to confirm these allegations.

[116] The applicant did not know who the offender was at the time of the incident. She

states that “[m]onths later we were to learn that the perpetrator was none other than one of

the five current trustees, Chris Passell”. The applicant does not set out how they learnt that

Mr Passell was responsible. The applicant states that they did approach the Police and

requested a copy of the incident report but they refused to provide it for privacy reasons.

[117] Once again, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding on this issue. It is not

clear how the trustees subsequently discovered that Mr Passell was the person responsible

for this incident. This may have been through conjecture or gossip. Without further

evidence I cannot determine this matter.


[118] The applicant also alleges that since his appointment in 2010 Mr Passell has never

attended a trustee hui.

[119] Trustee hui are held at Haranui Marae on the first Sunday of every month. This

was confirmed by a number of trustees. The trustees do not provide specific notice for

trust meetings as it is said that this is the common practice that has been adopted in relation

to this marae. It is also said that this is known by all trustees and also all beneficiaries who

are able to attend trust meetings.

[120] While I do not have a copy of all of the minutes for hui held on the marae since

2010, the minutes for nine meetings have been filed.30

Of these nine meetings, Mr Passell

is not recorded as attending any of them. Neither is Mr Passell recorded as providing

apologies for any of those meetings.

[121] Mr Passell did not appear in this proceeding. As set out above he has had sufficient

notice and opportunity to do so.

[122] Carole Povey and those others opposing the application did not dispute the

allegation that Mr Passell has failed to attend trustee meetings. No explanation or excuse

was offered for his absence.

[123] Regulation 6 of the Regulations states:

6 Duty of trustees

It shall be the duty, at all times, of the trustees to act in good faith in the exercise of

their powers under these regulations, and to administer the reservation in respect of

which they are appointed—

(a) in such manner as will promote the purposes for which the reservation is

set apart; and

(b) for the benefit of the persons for the time being entitled to the use and

enjoyment of the reservation; and

(c) in accordance with the Act and these regulations, and any order of the court

in relation to the reservation.

30

That includes minutes for 2 October 2011, 6 October 2013, 3 November 2013, 1 December 2013, 2

March 2014, 16 March 2014, 29 March 2015, 19 April 2015 and 17 May 2015. These minutes are for

both trustee meetings and beneficiary meetings.


[124] This reflects the general obligations on trustees to carry out their terms of trust and

to administer and manage the business of the trust.31

Regulation 17(b) states:

The trustees shall otherwise meet for the dispatch of business at such times and

places as the trustees consider appropriate:

[125] It is implicit within this regulation, and in accordance with the general practice of

trusts constituted by the Māori Land Court, that trustees must attend trustee meetings in

order to administer trust business and to carry out their duties as trustees. As such, if a

trustee continually fails to attend trustee meetings without reasonable explanation or

excuse, that trustee is failing to carry out his or her duties satisfactorily.32

[126] This is also reinforced by s 240(b) which provides that a trustee may be removed

because of prolonged absence.

[127] On the evidence before me I find that Mr Passell has failed to attend trustee

meetings without reasonable explanation or excuse. I also find that Mr Passell has failed to

carry out his duties satisfactorily and because of prolonged absence he is incapable of

carrying out those duties satisfactorily.

[128] For these reasons Mr Passell should be removed as a responsible trustee of the

reservation.

Should Dean Panui be removed?

[129] The applicant alleges that Mr Panui has not been attending trustee meetings either.

[130] Mr Panui did not appear in this proceeding. As with Mr Passell he has had

sufficient notice and sufficient opportunity to do so. The allegation that Mr Panui has

failed to attend meetings was not contested and no explanation or excuse was offered for

his absence.

31

Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 32

Hape v Smith – Part Te Pupuke K No 2 (Māori Reservation) (2015) 99 Taitokerau MB 174 (99 TTK

MB 174)


[131] The minutes filed show that of those nine meetings Mr Panui attended one on 3

November 2013.33

Mr Panui is also noted as tendering apologies for the meeting on 17

May 2015. This means that of those nine hui, Mr Panui has attended one and tendered

apologies for another. That leaves at least seven other hui for which Mr Panui has failed to

attend or failed to tender apologies.

[132] As set out above trustees are required to attend trustee meetings in order to

discharge their duties. Failing to attend meetings without reasonable explanation or excuse

is not acceptable.

[133] On the evidence before me I find that Mr Panui has failed to attend trustee meetings

without reasonable explanation or excuse. I also find that Mr Panui has failed to carry out

his duties satisfactorily and because of prolonged absence he is incapable of carrying out

those duties satisfactorily.

[134] For these reasons Mr Panui should be removed as a responsible trustee of the

reservation.

Should Ratu Waata be removed?

[135] The application states that Mr Waata should be replaced as a trustee as he has

resigned. A resignation letter from Mr Waata was not filed.

[136] At the hearing on 8 June 2015 Mr Waata confirmed that he was not seeking to

resign and that he wished to remain as a trustee. In response, Doris Povey then questioned

Mr Waata as to his suitability. It appeared from the line of questioning that Mr Waata’s

removal was sought. Despite that, the applicant did not seek to amend the application to

remove Mr Waata for cause.

[137] In closing submissions the applicant does not allege that Mr Waata should be

removed as per s 240 of the Act. The applicant maintains that Mr Waata should be

replaced as per ss 239 and 338(7) on the basis that he has resigned.

33

Interestingly Mr Panui is noted as being a member of the marae whānau rather than a trustee in

attendance.


[138] Mr Waata has not resigned. Mr Waata gave evidence that he seeks to remain as a

trustee. As such I cannot replace him as per s 239 of the Act.

[139] I note that even if the applicant had sought Mr Waata’s removal as per s 240, I have

doubts as to whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence or grounds to do so.

What are the views of the beneficiaries?

[140] In Ellis v Faulkner - Poripori Farm A, Judge Carter found that in considering

removal per s 240 of the Act, the Court must have regard to the views of the owners as

provided for in ss 2(2), 17(2) and 222(2) of the Act.34

Judge Carter held:35

In the previous application to remove Toa Faulkner referred to earlier, in

considering the question of satisfactory performance under section 240 I said at

Tauranga MB 53/136:

“The test of satisfactory performance need not be judged solely on objective

standards. The Court is entitled to consider the nature of the trust, its

performance and the views of the owners in coming to a determination.”

I still concur with that statement and my view is reinforced by the statutory

provisions that I have just referred to. That is not to say that the Court must blindly

follow the wishes of the owners. There must still be grounds under section 240 for

the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to remove a trustee.

[141] This approach was approved by the Māori Appellate Court in Perenara.36

[142] In the present case, at the meeting on 19 April 2015 the following resolution was

passed:

We offer all the Trustees whether you resigned formally or not to Resign.

[143] It could be argued that based on this resolution the beneficiaries do not support

these five trustees remaining in office. I note that the resolution simply offers for those

trustees to resign. It does not state that those trustees should be removed for cause or

against their will.

34

Ellis v Faulkner - Poripori Farm A (1996) 57 Tauranga MB 7 (57 T 7). 35

Ibid at MB 14. 36

Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki MB 233 (10 AP 233).


[144] It is also apparent from the decision in Poripori that while the views of the

beneficiaries is relevant, this on its own is not sufficient to justify removal. There must

still be sufficient grounds as per s 240 requiring removal.

[145] For these reasons, while the views of the beneficiaries are relevant, and while I

have taken this resolution into account, I do not consider that this alters my findings set out

above.

Decision

[146] The application seeking to set out terms of trust per s 338(8) of the Act is dismissed

by consent.

[147] Pursuant to ss 338(7) and 239 of the Act I grant an order:

(a) Appointing Riki Manukau, Joseph Warren Timoti, Tracey Rawinia Hill,

Arianna Rose Michelle Hart, Tumanako Ron Povey, Cherith Joy Vaha’akolo

and Kapu Wilcox as responsible trustees of the Otakanini Māori Reservation

in replacement of:

(b) Glenn Wilcox, Mei Hill, Danielle Hood, Pearl Hill, Maramatanga Stead,

Awa Hudson, Kura Foreman, Donna Harris and Koromiko Richards who

have resigned, and

(c) Mona Cribb who is deceased.

[148] Pursuant to s 240 of the Act and regulation 3(f) of the Regulations I grant an order

removing:

(a) Christopher Passell and Dean Panui as responsible trustees of the Otakanini

Māori Reservation.

[149] Pursuant to ss 239(3) and 338(7) I vest the Otakanini Māori Reservation in:


(a) Riki Manukau, Joseph Warren Timoti, Tracey Rawinia Hill, Arianna Rose

Michelle Hart, Tumanako Ron Povey, Cherith Joy Vaha’akolo, Kapu

Wilcox, Ratu Waata, Carole Devereux (Povey), Denise Hohepa-Hapeta and

John William Hapeta as responsible trustees to hold and administer for the

benefit of the beneficiaries named in the Gazette notice.

Pronounced in open Court in Whangarei at 10.35 am on Friday this 14th

day of August

2015.

M P Armstrong

JUDGE

Documents

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140009232 A20150003382 · 2016. 5. 12. · 108 Taitokerau MB 76 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT