IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A

Transcription

1 108 Waiariki MB 261 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A UNDER IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND Sections 18(1)(a), 67, 322 and 323 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Paenoa Te Akau Block TRUSTEES OF PAENOA TE AKAU TRUST Applicant TAUPŌ DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Hearings: 90 Taupō MB 89 dated 29 September Waiariki MB 258 dated 10 September Waiariki MB 176 dated 22 July Waiariki MB 229 dated 12 November Waiariki MB 102 dated 1 April Waiariki MB 8 dated 26 June 2014 (Heard at Taupō) Appearances: Ms Terena Wara, for the applicant Mr Robert Goldsbury, for the respondent Judgment: 1 December 2014 J RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD Copies to: Ms Terena Wara, Tupono Legal Limited, PO Box 1693, Rotorua terena@tupono.co.nz Mr Robert Goldsbury, Taupō District Council, Taupō rgoldsbury@taupo.govt.nz

2 108 Waiariki MB 262 Introduction [1] This decision concerns several applications relating to the status of Tupara road situated in Acacia Bay, Taupō. [2] The applicants and respondent both agree that Tupara Road was created in 1937 as a legal road. The applicants however claim that the roadway was cancelled and therefore the status of Tupara Road is as Maori Freehold land. The respondents see things different and claim Tupara Road is still a public road. [3] The first application was filed on 16 September 2009 by Hinekaharoa Ngawhika under ss 322 and 323 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 ( the Act ). The applicant sought an order of the Court cancelling Tupara Road and revesting it in the beneficial owners. The application was made on the basis that the Taupo District Council had issued a notice to the occupants of Tupara Road to vacate the Rowing Club building situated along Tupara Road. The building was subsequently removed. On removal the owners erected a temporary building on the side of the road which the Council was also seeking to remove. [4] The second application was filed on 6 September 2010 under s 67 of the Act by the same applicant. A judicial conference was sought between the Paenoa Te Akau Trust, Taupo District Council and the shareholders of Paenoa Te Akau Trust upon the grounds that the Taupo District Council had asserted that Tupara Road, Korukomoana Road and Paenoa Road are all public roads despite the Māori Land Court records indicating otherwise. [5] The Third application was filed on 25 November 2013 by the trustees of Paenoa Te Akau Trust seeking a determination of ownership of Tupara Road per s 18(1)(a) of the Act.

3 108 Waiariki MB 263 [6] This decision concerns the Third application seeking a determination on the ownership of Tupara road. Procedural History [7] The initial hearing was held before Judge Harvey on 29 September After hearing from the parties Judge Harvey directed the Registrar to prepare a block history and to commission expert evidence from Dr Bryan Gilling as to the legal-history of the block. [8] A judicial conference was then held on 10 September Judge Harvey reiterated that Mr Miharo Armstrong had been appointed to represent the owners and signalled that the direction to commission a Report by Dr Bryan Gilling had not been followed through. The matter was adjourned to allow for the commissioning of the Report. [9] The matter came before the Court again on 22 July The report regarding Tupara Road had been received on 1 May Mr Armstrong appeared and submitted that Tupara Road has been closed since 1961 and is currently vested in the Paenoa Te Akau owners. This was denied by Counsel for the Taupo District Council. Judge Harvey adjourned the application for further research to be commissioned from Dr Gilling. [10] On 12 November a further hearing was held. Mr Armstrong indicated he would be seeking to make two new applications, one seeking a determination of ownership of Tupara Road and the other for a claim for damages in relation to trespass. Timetabling matters were dealt with and the application was subsequently adjourned. [11] The final substantive hearing was held on 26 June 2014 before me. 5 By this stage the additional application for determination of ownership and entitlement to any proceeds from the alienation of Tupara Road had been filed. Ms Wara, now counsel on this matter given Mr Armstrong s appointment to the Mäori Land Court Bench, indicated that the applicants only sought a determination of ownership at this stage. Both counsel made Taupo MB 89 (90 TPO 89). 17 Waiariki MB 25 (17 WAR 258). 80 Waiariki MB 176 (80 WAR 176). 86 Waiariki MB 229 (80 WAR 229). 100 Waiariki MB 8 (100 WAR 8).

4 108 Waiariki MB 264 extensive submissions as to the status of Tupara Road. At the conclusion of the hearing I reserved my decision. Tupara Road [12] Tupara Road was created by order of the Native Land Court on 15 December 1937 per s 428 of the Native Land Act This is not disputed. Tupara Road was set apart over the block then known as Part Rangatira 8A. On 29 June 1938 the Court recommended that Tupara Road be proclaimed a public road. A gazette giving effect to that recommendation was published on 21 July [13] In 1955, Judge John Harvey made several orders partitioning the Rangatira blocks. Those orders were never fully progressed and were subsequently cancelled in 1961 by Judge Prichard. During the hearings held in 1960 prior to Judge Prichard s cancellation of the 1955 orders, the closure of the 4 lateral roads which included Tupara Road was described as being necessary to give effect to the new subdivision. 7 Tupara Road was subsequently cancelled per s 425 of the Māori Affairs Act The 1961 cancellation order notes that the roads are to be cancelled for the better utilisation of the lands as a subdivision. [14] In 1974 a Royal Commission was established to address problems with the subdivision of these blocks. 9 The Royal Commission Report recommended that legislation be passed cancelling all orders made by Judge Prichard and Judge Harvey. The Māori Purposes Act 1975 (Part III) was enacted to give effect to this recommendation. [15] The effect of The Māori Purposes Act 1975 was to create the land now known as Paenoa Te Akau. 10 The Paenoa Te Akau block is Māori freehold land hectares in New Zealand Gazette Notice dated 21 July 1938 p Taupo MB (36 TPO ). 37 Taupo MB 26 (37 TPO 26). Sir Trevor Ernest Henry Royal Commission on the future use of Rangatira B and Rangatira C Blocks (presented to the House of Representatives by Command of His Excellency the Governor General, 1974). 55 Taupo MB 19 (55 TPO 19).

5 108 Waiariki MB 265 size and is situated adjacent to Acacia Bay Road, Taupo. The block is bounded to the south by the waters of Lake Taupo. Paenoa Te Akau Trust was constituted on 2 August Issue [16] The issue for determination is whether the 1961 order cancelling Tupara Road was revoked by the Māori Purposes Act 1975 so as to revive the status of Tupara Road as a public road or whether the 1961 order was exempt from the Māori Purposes Act 1975 and the road revested in the beneficial owners. Submissions for the Applicant [17] The applicants submit that Tupara Road was proclaimed a public road in 1938 and subsequently cancelled by Judge Prichard in 1961 and vested in the adjoining owners. The applicants say that Taupo District Council now wrongly asserts ownership of Tupara Road and has purported to grant rights for the establishment of a Yacht Club and the ejection of beneficial owners from that Road. [18] The applicants reject the claim by the Taupo District Council that Tupara Road is a public road by virtue of the Māori Purposes Act They argue that Tupara Road is Māori freehold land by virtue of the 1961 cancellation order and the Māori Purposes Act 1975 does not alter that order. Further they submit that Part III of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 refers only to orders creating roadways not to orders cancelling roadways. [19] It is argued by the applicants that the 1961 cancellation order falls under s 29 of Māori Purposes Act 1975 which specifically provides that any decision made by the Court relating to the lands listed in Schedule 4 dated after 14 November 1955 unless specified in the Māori Purposes Act 1975 remain unaffected by that Act Taupo MB 177 (66 Tpo 177).

6 108 Waiariki MB 266 [20] It is further submitted that the uncontested evidence of Dr Gilling as provided in the Court directed reports supports their contention that the 1961 cancellation order was validly made, duly completed and remains intact such that Tupara Road has not been a public road since And this is further supported by the supplementary evidence of Dr Gilling who also found that the provisions of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 did not change the his view that the 1961 cancellation remains live. Submissions for the Respondents [21] Taupo District Council does not oppose an order of the Court that has the effect of closing Tupara Road and vesting it in the applicant from today. They do, however, oppose the claim that Tupara Road is not currently a legal road 12 and the claim that it was vested in the adjoining owners in [22] Counsel for the respondents submits that the Māori Purposes Act 1975 had the effect of unwinding everything that happened in relation to the blocks since 1955 and thereby reverted ownership to the position prior to the 1955 subdivision orders being made. Consequently, Tupara Road remains a legal road. [23] It is submitted that the Māori Purposes Act 1975 supersedes the historical process undertaken in relation to the blocks and therefore those processes are not relevant to these proceedings and that the issue before the Court depends on correctly interpreting the Māori Purposes Act [24] Further, it is argued that the survey plan for Paenoa Te Akau block ML was approved by the Court on 23 February 1983 and 25 July The plan refers to s 27 of the Māori Purposes Act The plan clearly shows Tupara Road as a legal road and cites the 1938 proclamation for the road. The approval is evidence of the Court in 1983 applied its interpretation of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 and ruled that the road would remain as or revert to a legal road. 12 Counsel refers to Tupara Road as being a legal road the correct reference is a public road.

7 108 Waiariki MB 267 [25] It can therefore be assumed, they say, that the surveyor who produced ML 21394, the Surveyor-General and the Māori Land Court had access to the plans detailing the blocks to be cancelled per the schedules to the Māori Purposes Act 1975 in order to satisfy themselves that ML accurately reflected the requirements of the Māori Purposes Act No challenge has been made to ML If it was wrong it is expected that it would have been challenged at the time. [26] Counsel for the respondent submits that the purpose of Part III of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 is to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of That Commission recommended that the 1961 and 1955 orders be cancelled and the pieces of land revert to the ownership of the persons who would now be owners as if none of the said orders were made. There is no exception in the recommendation to orders cancelling a legal road. This recommendation became operative per s 20 of the Māori Purposes Act [27] Clause 1 of schedule 2 lists the orders that are cancelled. Despite the fact that it does not make specific reference to the order made closing the legal road or s 425 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953 under which that order was made this does not mean the cancellation order remained extant. [28] The order closing the road sought to vest the road in adjoining owners per subsequent partition orders. Those subsequent orders were cancelled by the Māori Purposes Act This process had the effect of returning the land to the pre 1955 position where Tupara Road was a legal road. The respondent submits it would be incongruous to have reversed the 1955 and 1961 orders but leaving the roads owned by whoever happened to own the adjoining lands. It is further argued that the description of the land to be amalgamated and vested per Schedule 4 of the Act demonstrates the land as it was before the 1955 orders were made. Again, it would be incongruous if the effect of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 was that the land in schedule 4 is vested in an Incorporation but the closed roads be vested in adjoining owners.

8 108 Waiariki MB 268 [29] Counsel submits that the Court can have regard to the Parliamentary Debates as a potential aid to interpretation of the Māori Purposes Act The Parliamentary Debates contain comments that make it clear that the intention of Parliament was to reverse all changes that had occurred from 1955 onward and revert to the title position as it was before the 1955 orders. Parliament did not contemplate that the roads would remain as they had been following the 1961 orders. [30] However, it is said that the Court should be wary of changing the decision of the Court in 1983 without having the actual plans that would have been available to the Court at that time. The Court in 1983 correctly implemented the provisions of Part III of the Māori Purposes Act [31] In conclusion it is argued that if the Court did decide to change the status of Tupara Road it should only do so with effect from today. Is Tupara Road a legal road [32] Counsel for the respondents says that Tupara Road is a legal road by virtue of the 1938 proclamation setting the land apart as a public road. In order to determine if Tupara Road as originally enacted is a legal road it is helpful to refer to Deputy Registrar Utakura [33] In that decision Judge Ambler examined the methods by which roads could be created over Māori land at law. Roadways could in theory be created by five methods dedication, public works legislation, proclamation, order of the Māori Land Court and upon subdivision per the RMA and its predecessors. 14 He further noted that from the Native Land Act 1931 onwards, where the Court had by order created a road then the Court could recommend that it be a public road and the Governor-General could then by proclamation proclaim it as a public road (2011) 7 Taitokerau MB 71 (7TTK 71). Ibid at MB 74.

9 108 Waiariki MB 269 [34] Judge Ambler determined that a legal roadway or road over Māori land only exists and should only be shown on a plan if: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) There is in the Gazette a notice taking and laying out of a road under the Public Works legislation; or A plan of a road has been registered in the land transfer system under s 43(1)(d) of the 1989 Act or its predecessors; or Prior to the 1909 Act, there is clear evidence that the Governor has authorised the taking and laying out of the road; or From the 1909 Act on, there exists in the Gazette a proclamation by the Governor taking and laying out the road; or The Court has made a roadway order; or Upon the deposit of a survey plan under the land transfer system showing a road to be vested in the local authority or the Crown as per s 238 of the 1991 Act and its predecessors. [35] Judge Ambler concludes that if these circumstances do not exist then, notwithstanding that a survey plan purports to show a road or roadway, the conclusion must be that there is no legal road or roadway. [36] Tupara Road is depicted on ML for an area of 3 roods and 17 perches. The plan is dated March 1938 and the title for the plan is road to be taken through Rangatira Pt8A, 8A1TNo2, Nukuhau, Rangatira Pt8A, 8A12B1 & 8B2 Blocks. The plan records the gazette of 1938 p 1687 where in the roads were proclaimed public roads. [37] Tupara Road was in fact created by order of the Native Land Court per s 428 of the Native Land Act Tupara Road was therefore a legal road by way of its creation by order of the Court. The subsequent proclamation of the road as a public road meant that Tupara Road continued to be a legal road the only difference being that it was vested in the County Council as a public road. Therefore Tupara Road was in 1938 a legal road.

10 108 Waiariki MB 270 Did the Māori Purposes Act 1975 have the effect of reviving Tupara Road [38] As earlier set out, counsel for the applicants submit that Tupara Road was validly cancelled by Judge Prichard in 1961 and vested in the adjoining land owners. The applicants say that the Māori Purposes Act 1975 did not specifically refer to roadway cancellation orders and therefore the 1961 order remains in force and Tupara Road accordingly no longer exists. [39] The respondents however argue that the purpose of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 was to undo the 1955 and 1961 orders made in relation to the Rangatira blocks and return the blocks to their pre 1955 position. They say that as Tupara Road was created in 1937 and gazetted in 1938 and it remains a validly created public road. [40] They further argue this is evidenced by the 1983 Māori Land plan depicting the roads as approved by Judge Norman Smith. Law [41] In order to determine this issue it is necessary to consider the principles of statutory interpretation. [42] As a starting point s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1999 provides that: 5 Ascertaining meaning of legislation (1) The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose. (2) The matters that may be considered in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment include the indications provided in the enactment. (3) Examples of those indications are preambles, the analysis, a table of contents, headings to Parts and sections, marginal notes, diagrams, graphics, examples and explanatory material, and the organisation and format of the enactment.

11 108 Waiariki MB 271 [43] The learned authors of Statute Law in New Zealand 15 state that the modern trend is towards a purposive interpretation where the words of the legislation are read in their fullest context, and with a view to giving effect to the purpose of the legislation. Briefly put, there is overall a desire that legislation should work as Parliament intended it to. [44] The authors consider that a purposive approach works in the following way: 16 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) If words have two or more possible meanings, they should be given the one that best accords with the purpose of the legislation; A strained interpretation may be put on words if the purpose of the provision requires it, provided that that strained interpretation is one that the words can legitimately bear; General words should be given a construction that conforms with the purpose of the Act in question; Legislation that is obscurely prolix or badly drafted should be interpreted to give effect to the underlying purpose of the legislation; and Sometimes to ensure the attainment of the clear purpose of a piece of legislation a court may be prepared notionally to insert words, or even, conversely, to treat some of the words in the provision as surplus. [45] In Transpower New Zealand Ltd v Commerce Commission 17 the Court summarised the relevant legal principles: a) The starting point is s 5(1) of the Interpretation Act b) The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose. c) The relationship between text and purpose, and the significance of what may appear to be plain meaning, were commented on by Tipping J in Fonterra. 18 d) Even an apparently plain meaning is to be cross-checked against purpose Statute Law in New Zealand (4 th ed 2009 Lexis Nexis Ltd) Ch7(c). Ibid at Ch 8. HC Wellington CIV , 4 November Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2007] 3 NZLR 767 (SC).

12 108 Waiariki MB 272 e) It is necessary to bear in mind that s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1999 makes text and purpose the key drivers of statutory interpretation. The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose. Even if the meaning of the text may appear plain in isolation of purpose that meaning should always be cross-checked against purpose in order to observe the dual requirements of s 5. In determining purpose the Court must obviously have regard to both the immediate and the general legislative context. Of relevance too may be the social, commercial or other objective of the enactment. f) The concept of a plain and ordinary meaning does not involve the Court having regard to external sources such as expert meaning and textbooks but reference to recognised dictionaries is of course appropriate. g) Where meaning is not plain the Court will regard context and purpose as essential guides. (emphasis added) [46] The learned authors of Statute Law in New Zealand also go on to comment that as Cooke P observed in Northland Milk Vendors, the Courts will also try to make enactments work by filling gaps in a statutory scheme in a manner consistent with statutory purpose, and in doing so will have to have regard to legislative statements of purpose. But the Courts must not usurp Parliament s policy-making function. The Courts must therefore be satisfied as to Parliament s intention before acting in that way. The situations where the apparent meaning of plain and unambiguous language, or strict grammatical meaning, will yield to a meaning to be found in purpose and context can be categorised either as the application of the general, s 5(1) principle, or of a more particular rule for correcting obvious drafting errors. Decision [47] Taking into account the factors set out above it can be seen that in order to determine whether the Māori Purposes Act 1975 had the effect of reviving Tupara Road it is necessary to consider that Act in light of its context and purpose.

13 108 Waiariki MB 273 Purpose of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 [48] As previously stated, Part III of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 relates to the Establishing of Incorporations for Rangatira Blocks. Section 18 sets out the purpose of Part III as follows: 18. Purpose of this Part-The purpose of this Part of this Act is to give effect (with some modifications) to the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed by warrant dated the 25th day of February 1974 to inquire into and report upon the future use of certain Rangatira Blocks situated on the shores of Lake Taupo, which recommendations are contained in the report of the Commission dated the 19 th day of September 1974 and reproduced as Parliamentary Paper H6 for the year [49] Section 20 provides for the cancellation of orders as follows: 20. Cancellation of orders- (1) The orders of the Court and Maori Appellate Court specified in the Second Schedule hereto are hereby cancelled and, subject to subsection (2) of this section, the land comprised in those orders shall hereafter be held again under the instruments of title in existence immediately before the 14th day of November 1955 as if those orders had not been made. [50] The second schedule to the Act sets out the orders to be cancelled they are: a) The orders creating Rangatira BI to B614 inclusive and dated the 14th day of November b) The orders creating Rangatira BI to B614 inclusive, B619A to B619H inclusive, B619J to B619Qinclusive, B620, B621, B622A to B622D inclusive, and B623 and dated the 8th day of March c) The orders creating Rangatira C Residue, Rangatira Cl to C5 inclusive, Rangatira C7 to C926 inclusive, Rangatira C928, Rangatira C931 to C954 inclusive and dated the 13th day of December d) The orders creating Rangatira Cl to C973 inclusive and dated the 3rd day of November e) The order made pursuant to section 173 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 creating Rangatira C2 and dated the 18th day of April f) Orders made pursuant to section 184 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 cancelled. g) The orders of the Maori Land Court dated the 8th day of March 1961 and cancelling the title orders specified in clause (1) (a) of this Schedule. h) The orders of the Maori Land Court dated the 3rd day of November 1961 and cancelling the title orders specified in clause (1) (c) of this Schedule. i) Orders made pursuant to section 415 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 cancelled.

14 108 Waiariki MB 274 j) All orders made by the Maori Land Court on or after the 14th day of November 1955 and creating roadways over the land described in the Fourth Schedule to this Act. [51] As a starting point, on a plain reading of the Act the orders specified in the schedule do not specifically include the 1961 roadway cancellation order. However as has been argued above, the order cancelling Tupara Road was made on 8 March 1961 in conjunction with new partition orders being made for the blocks. The roadway cancellation orders were sought as part of the re-subdivision of the lands and new roads were envisaged. [52] Schedule two of the 1975 Act specifically refers to the 1955 and 1961 orders creating the title blocks, the orders made cancelling the 1955 orders and the orders per s 415 creating roadways made after 14 November [53] When considering the Act in light of its purpose, which was to give effect to the recommendations made in the 1974 Commission of Inquiry and to return the lands to a state of being which existed prior to the 1955 and 1961 subdivision plans, it is inferred that the intention would have been to include the 1961 Cancellation order. The reason being, that this order was made in conjunction with the new 1961 partition orders that were necessary to the 1961 plan and were not a standalone order that was intended to be made without the 1961 partition orders. [54] The mere fact that the schedule to the Act does not include this order would appear to be an anomaly. The purpose of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 was clearly to revert the lands to their position prior to the partition schemes. Does the approval of the 1983 ML plan mean Tupara Road remains a legal road? [55] Counsel for the Respondents argue that the survey plan for Paenoa Te Akau block ML which was approved by the Court on 23 February 1983 and 25 July 1983 provides further evidence that Tupara Road remains in existence.

15 108 Waiariki MB 275 [56] It can be assumed, they say, that the surveyor who produced ML 21394, the Surveyor-General and the Māori Land Court had access to the plans detailing the blocks to be cancelled per the schedules to the Māori Purposes Act 1975 in order to satisfy themselves that ML accurately reflected the requirements of the Māori Purposes Act [57] In Deputy Registrar - Utakura 7, Judge Ambler specifically addressed the issue of whether the approval of a survey plan on its own could create a road over Māori freehold land. He found that the mere approval of a survey plan depicting a roadway by the Court does not in itself create the roadway an express order is required. [58] ML notes Tupara Road as being a legal road and refers to the 1938 proclamation. The plan was drawn up for Paenoa Te Akau Block which was created over the former Rangatira blocks. The approval of the plan relates to the area of the block. [59] The second approval was required as one of the four lateral roads (the subject of the 1961 cancellation order) was cancelled on 15 January and re vested in the owners therefore the area of the block needed to be adjusted to include this road area. This cancellation took place prior to the 1955 and 1961 partitions. [60] The Court was must have been mindful of the roads over Paenoa Te Akau block as if they were not public roads the area of those blocks would need to have been included in the area of the block. While approval on its own is not sufficient to depict roads on a survey plan, the fact that the Court was creating this block and in its mind the roads were in place at the time gives weight to the fact that the roads are public roads retaining their pre 1955 status. [61] This is further evidenced by the fact that the Court made the amalgamation order for Paenoa Te Akau pursuant to the Māori Purposes Act Had the Court been of the opinion that the 1961 roadway cancellation order remained extant then it would have been expected that the survey boundaries would have also been adjusted accordingly Taupo MB 75 (33 TPO 75).

16 108 Waiariki MB 276 Conclusion [62] Based on the findings above I am of the opinion that Tupara Road when created in 1937 was a legal road as it was created by an order of the Court. When Tupara Road was proclaimed a public road it retained its status as a legal road. [63] Taking into account the context and purpose of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 the Act had the effect of reviving Tupara Road as a public road. The ML plan obtained in support of the creation of the Paenoa Te Akau block further evidences Tupara Road as a public road. [64] While approval of a plan in itself is not sufficient to create a road, the fact that the Court was appraised of the Māori Purposes Act 1975 and the state of the lands and indeed the size of the block (excl the road areas) supports the contention that it was envisaged that the Māori Purposes Act 1975 had the effect of reviving Tupara Road to be a public road. [65] As noted at the start of this decision I am dealing with only one of the three applications filed with the Court. In order to progress matters the Case Manager is to organise a teleconference with counsel for the purpose of timetabling matters to progress the live applications currently before the Court. Pronounced in open court at 8:30am in Rotorua on Monday the 1 st day of December C T Coxhead JUDGE