2019 Chief Judge’s MB 577

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

TAITOKERAU DISTRICT

A20110012287

CJ 2011/45

UNDER

Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

Te Paea Hami Oru or Te Paea Hami Pikari or Te

Paea Karahina and succession orders made at 1

Auckland MB 300-301 on 10 May 1966 and at 4

Auckland MB 294 on 10 November 1972

WAI-O-TURI KUI and

RAEWYN (KUI) BIDDLE

Applicants

Hearing:

27 February 2019, 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 177-194

(Heard at Whangārei)

Judgment:

19 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE FOX

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 578

Introduction

[1] Wai-o-turi Kui and Raewyn Biddle (the applicants) make application under s 45 of

Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (the Act), to amend the succession orders made on 10 May

1966 at 1 Auckland MB 300-301 and on 10 November 1972 at 4 Auckland MB 294 relating

to Te Paea Hami Oru or Te Paea Hami Pikari or Te Paea Karahina (the deceased).

[2] The applicants claim that the said orders are incorrect because of a mistake, error or

omission in the presentation of the facts of the case to the Court, in that not all of the

deceased’s children were included.

[3] The applicants claim that they have been adversely affected by the orders complained

of because:

(a) Their families, including themselves, have been omitted as descendants of the

deceased; and

(b) The deceased’s interests should go to all six of her descendants as per the

whakapapa provided with this application.

Background

[4] The Registrar’s Preliminary Report and Recommendation dated 4 December 2018

sets out the background to the application. The report is reproduced in full as follows:

PRELIMINARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

1. This application has been filed by Wai-o-turi Kui and Raewyn Biddle (the

applicants) and seeks to amend the succession orders made on 10 May 1966 at

1 Auckland MB 300-301 and on 10 November 1972 at 4 Auckland MB 294,

relating to the interests of Te Paea Hami Oru or Te Paea Hami Pikari or Te Paea

Karahina, deceased.

2. The applicants claim that the said orders are incorrect due to a mistake, error or

omission in the presentation of the facts of the case to the Court, because:

1 Auckland MB 300-301

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 579

a) At 1 Auckland MB 300-301 the incorrect whakapapa was presented to

the Court by Mohi Pickery; and

b) Three of Te Paea’s children, that were deceased with issue at the time,

were left out of the succession - Namely Atu Hone Pikari or Atu Pikari

or Atu Hone, Tamati Pikari or Tamati Hone Pikari or Tamati Hone and

Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari.

4 Auckland MB 294

c) At 4 Auckland MB 294 the persons determined entitled are incorrect as

Hemi Atu Hone Pikari and Wherere Ti Salle were gifted Te Paea’s

sibling’s shares;

d) Hemi Atu Hone Pikari is a grandson of Te Paea Karahina, being a son of

Atu Hone;

e) Wherere Ti Salle is also a grandson of Te Paea Karahina, being a son of

Ngareta Salle;

f) Jeff, Maude, Minnie or Ngareta and John Pickery are also incorrect

successors, as there were further children entitled to succeed; and

g) The other children, or their descendants, that were entitled to succeed

were Atu Hone Pikari or Atu Pikari or Atu Hone, Tamati Pikari or Tamati

Hone Pikari or Tamati Hone and Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari.

3. The applicants claim that they have been adversely affected by the orders

complained of upon the grounds that:

a) Their families, including themselves, have been omitted as descendants

of Te Paea; and

b) Te Paea’s interests should go to all six of her descendants as per the

whakapapa provided with this application.

Concise history of Orders sought to be amended

4. On 11 December 1964 Mohi Pickery applied to the Māori Land Court to

succeed to Te Paea Hami Oru or Pikari’s shares in Whatitiri B and other blocks.

Mr Pickery named Minnie Salle, John Pickery and himself on the application

form as the deceased’s children still alive (No deceased children were listed).

5. The application was heard by the Court in Auckland on 10 May 1966 at 1

Auckland MB 300-301 and the evidence transpired as follows:

47 Te Paea Hami Oru decd

135/53

Mohi Pickery sworn - deceased was my mother - died 11 March 1951 at

Te Ahuahu - I attended her funeral. My father predeceased her - about

1914. No will. Married once only to Hone Karehina or Pickery. Issue: 13

children as far as I remember.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 580

All have died except three. I do not know how many had children or who

they are.

I have brought this application because of claims for rates on this land - I

think about £225 owing. I paid rates for a time - last time was 1955/56 -

do not know who is on it now.

Asks for vesting to three surviving children.

Successors are surviving children:

1 Minnie Salle fa …

2 John Pickery ma …

3 Mohi Pickery ma …

and issue of other children if any

V/O 136/53

Whatitiri B Blk XII Omapere SD - £132.10.0

1 to 3 above equally

Order 32/53 Ben Card 22244 - £1.17.6

to applicant solely repay Court fee expense

Court minute to Mr Mohi Pickery

6. The effect of the order made, under section 136 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953

(the 1953 Act), was vesting the following interest:

Taitokerau District

Blocks Owner Shares

Whatitiri B Te Paea Hami Oru 5.000

in:

Successors/Beneficiaries

Name Sex Proportion

1 Minnie Salle f.a.

2 John Pickery m.a.

3 Mohi Pickery m.a. Equally

7. A further succession application was heard by the Court in Auckland on 10

November 1972 at 4 Auckland MB 294 and the evidence transpired as follows:

Te Paea Karahina or Te Paea Hami Oru dec’d

D/death 11/3/1951

Enquiry shows that Wharengaere 3 was omitted from the succession to

Te Paea Hami Oru at AT 1/300 of 10 May 1966 & that she is the same

person as Te Paea Karahina (N45/3).

The persons entitled are:

1 Hemi Atu Hone Pikari (or John Pickery) ma …

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 581

2 Wherere Ti Salle or Minnie Salle or Ngareta Salle fa …

{3 Jeff Pickery ma …

{4 Maude Robertson fa …

(being the issue of Mohi Pickery AT 4/51)

Order 136/53 on previous evidence AT 1/300-301 & 4/51

Wharengaere 3 - $350.00 1/3 No 1

1/3 No 2

1/3 No’s 3 & 4 equally

Copy of whole papers to John Pickery.

8. The effect of this order, made under section 136 of the 1953 Act, was vesting

the following interest:

Taitokerau District

Blocks Owner Shares

Wharengaere 3 Te Paea Karahina 1.000

in:

Successors/Beneficiaries

Name Sex Proportion

1 John Pickery m.a. 1/3

2 Minnie Salle or Ngareta Salle f.a. 1/3

3 Jeff Pickery m.a. 1/6

4 Maude Robertson f.a. 1/6

Identification of evidence that may be of assistance in remedying the mistake or

omission

9. The applicants have provided the following documents in support of their

application:

a) Two letters, dated 28 October 2011 and 18 April 2012, clarifying matters

raised regarding the supporting evidence provided and also setting out

relevant whakapapa information.

b) Death certificate of Te Paea Hone Pikari:

Married: Hone Karahina

Children: (3) - 2 male and 1 female

Father: Hami Eru

Mother: Reneti Hami

c) Death certificate of Atu Pikari:

Married: Raumati Hemi

Children: (5) - 3 male and 2 female

Father: Honi Pikari

Mother: Te Puna Pikari

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 582

d) Baptism certificate for Atua and Raumati Hone Karahina.

e) Death certificate of Tamati Pikari:

Married: Rangi Pikari

Children: (10) - 2 male and 8 female

Father: Tapa Pikari

Mother: Jane Pikari

f) Death certificate of Minnie Ngareta Salle:

Married: Tony Anthony Salle

Children: (8) - 1 male and 7 female

Father: Hone Karahina

Mother: Tepaea Karahina (nee Hami Oru)

g) Death certificate of Mohi Pikari:

Married: Violet Pahau

Children: Nil

Father: Tamati Pikari

Mother: Tepaea Pikari (nee Hamioru)

h) Marriage certificate of Moihi Karahina (Father: Pikari Karahina -

Mother: Tepaea Haami Oru) to Hine Karaka Mataua in 1941.

i) Death certificate of Jack Pickering or Hone Pikari:

Married: Gertrude Hagarty (1)

Louisa Cook (2)

Irma Hand (3)

Children: (4) - 2 male and 2 female

Father: Hone Pikari

Mother: Te Paea Pikari (nee Oru)

j) Marriage certificate of Ngarui Kuku to Hone Pikari (Father: Hone Pikari

- Mother: Te Paea Hamiora) in 1935.

k) Death certificate of Harora Pikari:

Married: Laura

Children: Nil

Father: Hone Pikari

Mother: Te Paea Pikari

l) Marriage certificate of Laura Allen to Harold Pikari (Father: John Pikari

- Mother: Te Paea Pikari nee Oru) in 1927.

m) Copies of the minutes and orders under review.

n) Whakapapa information, including that set out below:

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 583

o) The applicants also state that Te Paea Hami Oru and Pikari Karahina had

thirteen children in total - Seven of whom died before they were of an

age to have children.

10. Court research shows that:

a) The error regarding Hemi Atu Hone Pikari and Wherere Ti Salle being

shown on the minute and order dated 10 November 1972 at 4 Auckland

MB 294 (by combining their shares with John Pickery and Minnie Salle

or Ngareta Salle respectively), has already been rectified by the Court.

b) An order was made on 5 March 1975 at 6 Auckland MB 368, pursuant to

section 30(1)(a) of the 1953 Act, whereby the following changes were

made:

The effect of intention of this order is that the schedule of owners

is to be amended to record Hemi Atu Hone Pikari and John Pickery

as different persons and Wherere Ti Salle and Minnie Salle as

different persons with separate interests.

c) Those findings have also been supported by two subsequent applications

to the Chief Judge, namely:

1995 Chief Judge’s MB 196-198 (12 July 1995) re Frederick Salle

i. Relevant extracts from the evidence given state that:

1) Mr Patterson - “Te Paea Karahina is Wherere’s maternal

grandmother. Her daughter was Ngareta (a.k.a Minnie)

Salle. Her son is Wherere (a.k.a Frederick).”

2) Mr Patterson - “Wherere received shares independently of

his mother Minnie.”

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 584

3) Court - “Everyone agrees that Ngareta and Wherere Ti Salle

(or Frederick) are not the same person - they are mother and

son.”

ii. An order was made, pursuant to section 44(1) of Te Ture Whenua

Māori Act 1993 (the Act), revesting 0.333 shares in Wharengaere

3 block, back into the name Minnie (Ngareta) Salle.

2009 Chief Judge’s MB 160-168 (18 May 2009) re John Pickery

iii. Relevant extracts from the evidence given state that:

1) Registrar’s Report (Paragraph 18) - “The error in this matter

appears to have been made by the Court … by the inclusion

of John Pickery’s interest in Wharengaere 3 in the

succession orders in respect of the Estate of Hemi Atu Hone

Pikari.”

2) Registrar’s Report (Paragraph 19) - “The evidence provides

that Hemi Atu Hone Pikari and John Pickery are not the

same person.”

3) No objections were received to the Registrar’s Report.

iv. An order was made, pursuant to section 44(1) of the Act, revesting

0.333 shares in Wharengaere 3 block, back into the name John

Pickery.

Supporting Succession Evidence

d) On 28 July 1936 at 3 Consolidation Bay of Islands MB 84 the Court made

succession orders for Pikari Karahina (Te Paea’s husband) and the

evidence transpired as follows:

Pikari Karahina dec’d

Hemi Atu Hone: - Died over 20 yrs ago.

No will, left issue:

Atu Hone m

Tamati Hone m

Moihi Hone m

Matekino Hone f

Te Akeake Hone m

This evidence includes ‘Atu Hone’ and ‘Tamati Hone” as children of

Pikari Karahina. It is however not sufficient proof that they are also

children of Te Paea.

e) On 11 February 1946 at 21 Bay of Islands MB 198 the Court made a

succession order for Atu Pikari and the evidence transpired as follows:

Atu Pikari dec’d

Te Paea Pikari ofo

Deceased was my son. Died October 1942. No will. Married

Raumati Hemi.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 585

Issue: - Hemi Atu Pikari ma

Aramotia Atu Pikari fa

Wire Atu Pikari ma

Ani Atu Pikari (d) issue

This minute confirms that Atu Pikari is a child of Te Paea Pikari (Her

sworn evidence states “Deceased was my son”).

Whatitiri B block

f) This block was partitioned by the Court on 25 October 1967 at 3

Kawakawa MB 189 into the following titles:

i. Whatitiri B1 containing 4 acres 0 roods 38.9 perches

ii. Whatitiri B2 containing 24 acres 1 rood 2 perches

Both titles were vested into fourteen owners, including John Pickery

(1.667 shares), Minnie Salle (1.666 shares) and Mohi Pickery (1.667

shares).

Whatitiri B1 block

g) Whatitiri B1 block was subsequently sold to Agnes Muriel Bindon and

became general land as per the following:

i. Order confirming a resolution of assembled owners made on 24

January 1969 at 5 Kaikohe MB 259;

ii. An ‘Alienation Notice’ issued on 5 May 1969 (Reference:

R7/220); and

iii. Registration of the transfer against the legal title (NAPR17A/1091)

on 24 July 1969.

h) This land is now part of the current title ‘Lot 3 Deposited Plan 197092’

(NA126C/57) which is owned by Peter William Byers, Barbara Jean

MacKenzie, Alister Graham Snodgrass and Gordon Grant Snodgrass.

Whatitiri B2 block

i) Whatitiri B2 block was subsequently sold to H.R. Leslie & Son Limited

and became general land as per the following:

i. Order confirming a resolution of assembled owners made on 10

February 1969 at 5 Kaikohe MB 270;

ii. An ‘Alienation Notice’ issued on 30 April 1969 (Reference:

R7/221); and

iii. Registration of the transfer against the legal title (NAPR22D/1182)

on 7 June 1972.

j) The current title for this land is ‘Whatitiri B2 Block’ (NA22D/1183)

which is solely owned by Douglas Alexander Robinson.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 586

k) I note that the provisions of section 48(1) of the Act state that:

48 Matters already finalised or pending

(1) No order made by the Chief Judge under section 44 of this

Act, or made by the Appellate Court on appeal from any such

order, shall take away or affect any right or interest acquired for

value and in good faith under any instrument of alienation

registered before the making of any such order.

Details of subsequent Orders affecting lands to which this application relates

11. Subsequent orders affected by this application are as follows:

a) Succession order made on 17 March 1999 at 3 Kaikohe (Succession) MB

35, pursuant to sections 113 and 118 of the Act, in respect of Jeff Pickery.

b) Whānau Trust orders made on 29 September 2009 at 10 Whangarei

Succession MB 203-205, pursuant to sections 214, 219, 220 and 222 of

the Act, vesting interests in the ‘S & L Pickery Whānau Trust’.

c) Determination and Whānau Trust orders made on 17 October 2011 at 29

Taitokerau MB 2-3, pursuant to sections 113, 219, 220 and 244 of the

Act, in respect of John Pickery and ‘Te Ake Ake Hone Whānau Trust’.

d) Whānau Trust orders made on 3 May 2018 at 173 Taitokerau MB 34-38,

pursuant to sections 220, 222, 241(1)(a) and 244 of the Act, in respect of

‘Te Ake Ake Hone Whānau Trust’ and the ‘John Pikari and Tini Tui Mary

Te Ahu Whānau Trust’.

Details of payments made as a result of the Order

12. On 31 January 2012 the Māori Trustee advised that they do not administer the

blocks affected nor hold any accounts for the owners identified.

13. No further details have been sought regarding any payments made, in respect

of the land affected, as a result of the order made.

Reference to areas of difficulty

14. The areas of difficulty to deal with in this matter are as follows:

a) The applicants evidence provided shows that one of the children claimed

to be left out, Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari, left one child by the same

name. It is further stated that Harora or Harold Pikari (junior) was

“Adopted into Mehana whānau”.

b) It is not known if this was a legal or Māori customary adoption, and we

have no current contact details for him.

c) There are inconsistencies in the parents’ names recorded on the death

certificates for Atu Pikari, Tamati Pikari and Harora Pikari.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 587

d) The contact details for the current owners of ‘Lot 3 Deposited Plan

197092’ (NA126C/57), formerly Whatitiri B1 block, and ‘Whatitiri B2

Block’ (NA22D/1183) are not known.

e) In terms of section 48(1) of the Act, it does not appear that the Chief

Judge has any jurisdiction to make orders that would affect ownership

rights or interests in the purchased titles.

Consideration of whether matter needs to go to full hearing

15. Based on the information available, there is insufficient evidence to

conclusively prove that an error was made in the presentation of the facts of the

case to the Court, in respect of ‘all’ matters raised by the applicants.

16. It is noted however that the following evidence supports the claim that Atu Hone

Pikari or Atu Pikari or Atu Hone is a child of Te Paea Pikari:

a) Succession to Atu Pikari on 11 February 1946 at 21 Bay of Islands MB

198 whereat Te Paea Pikari gave sworn evidence that the deceased was

her son;

b) Succession to Pikari Karahina (Te Paea’s husband) on 28 July 1936 at 3

Consolidation Bay of Islands MB 84, where Atu Hone was named as a

child of the deceased; and

c) Death certificate of Atu Pikari which shows:

Date of Death: 11 October 1943 (i.e. died before 1966)

Mother: Te Puna Pikari (name slightly misspelt?)

Father: Honi Pikari

17. In respect of Tamati Pikari or Tamati Hone Pikari or Tamati Hone the evidence

available is not quite as definitive, and I note the following:

a) Succession to Pikari Karahina (Te Paea’s husband) on 28 July 1936 at 3

Consolidation Bay of Islands MB 84, whereat Tamati Hone was named

as a child of the deceased; and

b) Death certificate of Tamati Pikari which shows:

Date of Death: 22 May 1942 (i.e. died before 1966)

Mother: Jane Pikari

Father: Tapa Pikari

18. In respect of Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari again the evidence available is not

definitive, and I note the following:

a) Succession to Pikari Karahina (Te Paea’s husband) on 28 July 1936 at 3

Consolidation Bay of Islands MB 84, whereat Harora Hone was ‘not’

named as a child of the deceased;

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 588

b) Death certificate of Harora Pikari which shows:

Date of Death: 24 May 1928 (i.e. died before 1966)

Mother: Te Paea Pikari

Father: Hone Pikari

c) Marriage certificate for Harold Pikari which shows:

Mother: Te Paea Pikari (nee Oru)

Father: John Pikari

19. Accordingly, a Court hearing is necessary to afford the parties an opportunity

to present their case to the Court.

Recommendation of course of action to be taken

20. If the Deputy Chief Judge is of a mind to exercise her jurisdiction, then it would

be my recommendation that:

a) A copy of this report be sent to those affected parties, for whom we

have contact details for, giving them an opportunity to comment or

respond, in writing, within 28 days of the date this report is sent to

them.

b) That the application be set down for hearing at the Whangārei Māori

Land Court in February 2019.

c) Notice of the Court hearing be issued to all parties affected, for whom the

Court holds contact details.

Procedural History

[5] On 21 January 2019, the Registrar’s Preliminary Report and Recommendation was

distributed to all affected parties for whom addresses were known.

[6] The application was heard before me in Whangārei on 27 February 2019 where

evidence was given by parties.1 One of the applicants, Raewyn Biddle, questioned how the

Court could make such a mistake asserting that there were 13 children of the deceased. Seven

of these children did not have issue but she advised, six did. Three of those children Atu

Hone Pikari or Atu Pikari or Atu Hone, Tamati Pikari or Tamati Hone Pikari or Tamati Hone

and Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari pre-deceased Te Paea at the time the orders for

succession were granted had issue.

1 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 177-194 (2019 CJ 177-194).

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 589

[7] During the hearing I also heard from Mr John Pikari, the son of Te Ake Ake. John’s

father was one of the children of the deceased. He and the applicants produced the death

certificate of Atu Pikari which records Atu’s mother and father as Te Puni Pikari and Honi

Pikari. Also filed by the applicants was the marriage certificate of Atu Hone which cites his

mother as Te Paea. A further death certificate was produced for Tamati Pikari and that records

Tamati’s parents as Tapa Pikari and Jane Pikari. Although their names are recorded

differently in the death certificates, it was the evidence of Ms Biddle that Atu and Tamati

were children of Te Paea (the deceased).

[8] With respect to Harora, Mr John Pikari and the applicants produced the death

certificate of Harora (Harold) Hone or Pikari. That indicates he died on 24 May 1928 and

that his mother was the deceased. He married Laura Allen before his death and a marriage

certificate confirms that the event took place on 31 December 1927. His son was born 6

months later, and Mr John Pikari produced his birth certificate. That son Harora was born on

21 November 1928 and it appears was legally adopted into the Mehana family. The birth

certificate records that Harora Mehana’s father is Whare Mehana.

[9] Mr John Pikari further raised an issue concerning the estate of Te Kapo Hamiora and

orders made on 9 February 1944.2 The Registrar has reviewed this order and it appears that

no error was made, however, and as I advised during the hearing, should Mr Pikari wish to

pursue this matter a fresh application to the Chief Judge will need to be filed.

The Law

[10] The Chief Judge’s jurisdiction to amend or cancel an order of the Māori Land Court

is set out in s 44(1) of the Act:

44 Chief Judge may correct mistakes and omissions

(1) On any application made under section 45 of this Act, the Chief Judge may, if

satisfied that an order made by the Court or a Registrar (including an order made by a

Registrar before the commencement of this Act), or a certificate of confirmation issued

by a Registrar under section 160 of this Act, was erroneous in fact or in law because

2 20 Bay of Islands MB 194 (20 BI 194).

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 590

of any mistake or omission on the part of the Court or the Registrar or in the

presentation of the facts of the case to the Court or the Registrar, cancel or amend the

order or certificate of confirmation or make such other order or issue such certificate

of confirmation as, in the opinion of the Chief Judge, is necessary in the interests of

justice to remedy the mistake or omission.

[11] The principles that are applied to s 45 decisions have been previously set out in

numerous decisions made by the Chief Judge and myself. These are to be found in the

judgment Ashwell - Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell)3 and in Tau v Nga Whanau O

Morven & Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block.4 I do not propose to repeat those

principles again in this judgment.

[12] However, for the benefit of the parties, I note that s 44 explicitly refers to situations

where the Court has made an incorrect decision due to a flaw in the evidence presented, or

in the interpretation of the law, and it is necessary in the interests of justice to correct its

record. For this reason, s 45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw

identified, either through the production of evidence not available or not known of at the

time the order was made or through submissions on the law.

[13] I also note the wording of s 48(1) of the Act:

48 Matters already finalised or pending

(1) No order made by the Chief Judge under section 44, or made by the Appellate

Court on appeal from any such order, shall take away or affect any right or interest

acquired for value and in good faith under any instrument of alienation registered

before the making of any such order.

Issues

[14] The issues to determine in this case are:

(a) Whether the Court made a mistake or whether there was an omission on the

part of the Court; and

3 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209). 4 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167).

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 591

(b) If so, is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or

omission.

Discussion

[15] On 10 May 1966 at 1 Auckland MB 300-301 the Court made an order in favour of

Minnie Salle, John Pickery, and Mohi Pickery. This was despite evidence that there were 13

children in total and that there may be issue of those other children.

[16] On that date the Court dealt with Whatitiri B Blk XII Omapere SD valued at

£132.10.0 and the order was made under the Māori Affairs Act 1953. Under s 135 of that

Act and on application, the Court could determine the persons who were legally entitled to

succeed to any beneficial freehold interests in Māori land. Under s 136, the Court was

required to proceed to dispose of those interests by a vesting order in favour of those entitled.

Alternatively, it could give effect to any agreement or arrangement made between those

entitled and make a vesting order accordingly. Under s 137(1) the Court could not vest in

the beneficiary or in any person other than the Māori Trustee any interest which, together

with any other interest in the same land owned by that beneficiary or other person, would

constitute an uneconomic interest. The expression "uneconomic interest" referred to a

beneficial freehold interest the value of which, in the opinion of the Court, did not exceed

the sum of £25.

[17] The Court vested in only 3 of the potential successors and in doing so it omitted to

inquire into the number of remaining successors. If it had done so it could have catered for

Atu and Tamati in the vesting and it would have remained within the £25 vesting rule. This

mistake was continued by the order made on 10 November 1972 at 4 Auckland MB 294,

although that order was subsequently varied by the Chief Judge.

[18] Due to this important omission on the part of the Court and having regard to the

serious cultural consequences for the affected families of Atu and Tamati, and taking into

account the Preamble of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, which recognises land as a taonga

tuku iho, I consider that it is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or

omission.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 592

Decision/Orders

[19] Accordingly, in terms of s 44(1) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, I consider that

it is necessary in the interests of justice that I exercise my jurisdiction and amend the

succession orders, relating to the interests of Te Paea Hami Oru or Te Paea Hami Pikari or

Te Paea Karahina, as follows:

(a) 1 Auckland MB 300-301 dated 10 May 1966 by including Atu Hone Pikari or

Atu Pikari or Atu Hone and Tamati Pikari or Tamati Hone Pikari or Tamati

Hone as equal successors. However, this cannot extend to maintaining an

interest in the Whatitiri B1 and 2 blocks which have been sold due to the effect

of s 48 of the 1993 Act as recorded by the Registrar.

(b) 4 Auckland MB 294 dated 10 November 1972 by:

(i) Including Atu Hone Pikari or Atu Pikari or Atu Hone and Tamati Pikari

or Tamati Hone Pikari or Tamati Hone for a proportion of 1/5th each; and

(ii) Amending the proportions of the other beneficiaries as follows:

1. John Pickery - Change from 1/3 to 1/5

2. Minnie Salle or Ngareta Salle - Change from 1/3 to 1/5

3. Jeff Pickery - Change from 1/6 to 1/10

4. Maude Robertson - Change from 1/6 to 1/10

[20] A further order is made, pursuant to s 47(4) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993,

making all consequential amendments necessary to give full effect to the order made above.

[21] The foregoing orders are to issue immediately pursuant to rule 7.5(2)(b) of the Māori

Land Court Rules 2011.

[22] The Case Manager is directed to distribute a copy of this judgment to all parties.

2019 Chief Judge’s MB 593

Pronounced at 10.00 am in Gisborne on Wednesday, this 19th day of June 2019.

C L Fox

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE