Supreme Court agrees to hear Maori Council appeal

December 18th, 2012 at 11:50 am by David Farrar

Alex Tarrant at interest.co.nz writes:

The fight to stop the government’s programme is heading to the .

The highest court in the land today granted approval for the to appeal a High Court decision a week ago that the government’s decisions regarding moves to partially privatise four state-owned energy companies were not reviewable in court.

The Supreme Court also granted leave for the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court, meaning the next decision could be the final act in the Maori Council’s bid to prove the sales would be unlawful.

The approved ground of appeal was whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.

The Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal on January 31 and February 1 next year.

It is good that the Supreme Court granted leave to bypass the Court of Appeal. This means that if they do not uphold the appeal, the the partial sales can proceed on time.

Of course it is possible the Supreme Court may uphold the appeal. To do so they would need to find that Justice Young was incorrect both in ruling that the decisions were not reviewable, but also that even if they were none of the grounds cited were substantial.

Cynics might say that regardless of the merits, the Maori Council may start with one vote in their favour. So it could be up to how the other four Justices see it.

Tags: , ,

34 Responses to “Supreme Court agrees to hear Maori Council appeal”

  1. swan (665 comments) says:

    What are the grounds for appeal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    Good. Now Sian Elias must recuse herself from hearing the case as her previous professional relationship and friendship with the Maori Council’s Donna Hall is a massive conflict of interest. For those unaware, Sian Elias was Donna’s barrister in a number of Treaty of Waitangi cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The sooner she stands aside the better for the appearance of this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flipper (4,060 comments) says:

    Auberon..
    You mean the middle aged, Justice Sian Fletcher, do you not? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Will the pack of liberals appointed by Clark rule against the Stone Agers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. flipper (4,060 comments) says:

    On further reflection:
    Assuming Elias/Fletcher has the sense to recuse herself,
    Will Collins now recuse herself on Bain and Binnie?
    Can we get “the ***** judge” to review any adverse finding against the Crown (aka, the long suffering NZ taxpayers) ? :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “Will Collins now recuse herself on Bain and Binnie?”

    Why? This is a cabinet decision. It is not a judicial decision. Collins is a member of the cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Will Collins now recuse herself on Bain and Binnie?

    Sure, whatever. It won’t make any difference though. Your blue eyed boy won’t be getting a brass razoo. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. rg (214 comments) says:

    Why did the Maori Council do this? They are in effect missing out on one appeal. The only conclusion is that they know they will lose in the appeal court and that with Sian Elias in the supreme court they have a chance.
    As the Maori council said after the High court decision, they were disappointed that the judge focused only on legal matters. One presumes they think Elias wont. My guess is that they would be right.

    Can anyone sight for me the reason the Supreme court gave for allowing this, and why teh Govt did not oppose it (or did they?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Can anyone sight for me the reason the Supreme court gave for allowing this, and why teh Govt did not oppose it (or did they?)

    The Government wants it over with quickly.

    The Maori Council has a right to one appeal, if that was to the Court of Appeal, they’d still try to take it to the Supreme Court afterward. Given the importance of the matter, it’s highly likely that the Supreme Court would have heard it then anyway.

    My understanding was that the Government didn’t just not oppose this skipping the Supreme Court, but actively supported it. If the matter is important enough to end there, they’ll save everyone time and money by skipping the extra step.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    I hope the Hori’s win the Supreme Court case. Might make JK grow a bigger pair.
    Another case of the big brown anchor dragging along hindering NZ.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Do not use the term Horis]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    DPF..Surely you are not suggesting one of our Supreme Court Judges may pre-determine matters? The very idea….

    [DPF: No I said a cynic might think that. I am an optimist!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    I hope the Hori’s win the Supreme Court case. Might make JK grow a bigger pair.

    It would make him have to borrow money. Or not to make the infrastructure investments. That would be a good thing, how exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Another case of the big brown anchor dragging along hindering NZ.

    Made possible because of a white liberal elite, driven by a stupid guilt complex
    Add to the mix a myriad of academics, lawyers (gravy train), spineless politicians (part of this feeble government) and you some of the causes of NZ’s stagnant situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OneTrack (3,093 comments) says:

    “bhudson (2,983) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    I hope the Hori’s win the Supreme Court case. Might make JK grow a bigger pair.

    It would make him have to borrow money. Or not to make the infrastructure investments. That would be a good thing, how exactly?”

    Because it might help save some money for when the claims for air and sunlight come up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (4,060 comments) says:

    Ross (aka the serial liar) and Nookee…..
    There you go again.

    I was not posting in support of any particular eye colour – just from personal knowkedge of a terrible injustice that required Robert David Muldoon and an AUSSIE judge (plus Peter Goodon & Archbishop Johnstone) to remedy – over the objections of the wionderful NZ judiciary, whom, when push came to shove, valued their “job knighthoods” over the system they had used to persecute A A Thomas.

    By the way, you silly fools, if you have not read R.E.Jones (in NZ Herald) this morning, try reading (if you are able) and selling him on your lies, half truths, diversions and distortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,561 comments) says:

    As the Maori council said after the High court decision, they were disappointed that the judge focused only on legal matters.

    ??

    Should the judge also have considered the opinion of friends and consulted with taniwha?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Well we know what the result will be there with Judges who have made a career on the TOW gravy train. None of them are impartial all are biased against whitey and for the Horis. All are liberal revisionists with their own boats to row nothing to do with justice.
    JK better get the law drafts people ready cause we are gonna need a law change to sort this shamles out and one that the SC cronies cant find a way thru cause betcha they will try.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. flipper (4,060 comments) says:

    Pete G.

    But of course.
    (My wife and I always give thanks to the Taniwha every time we hook a rainbowion Lake Tarawera.) :)
    And the MSM (circa 2012) let them get away with it.
    Not one pointed question put to the MC and their followers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    I do not know if it applies here, but the usual reason for a leapfrog is where the court being bypassed is constrained by precedent and would give a predictable ruling. So the case might as well go straight to a court that can take a real look at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “By the way, you silly fools, if you have not read R.E.Jones (in NZ Herald) this morning, try reading (if you are able) and selling him on your lies, half truths, diversions and distortions”

    Not sure what brought that on Flipper. I asked why Collins should recuse herself. Normally a person who has to act judicially (ie, a judge, adjudicator, arbitrator) should recuse if there is actual or perceived bias. Collins is not required to act judicially. She is one of a number of people (collectively called “the Cabinet”) who have been asked to make a payment. Of course she has to participate in the process. Where are the lies, half-truths and distortions in that?

    What standing has Bob Jones got in all this, by the way? Has he suddenly become the gospel?

    If it is any consolation, I am more than happy the Arthur Allan was compensated. I am also happy the Rex Haig wasn’t. It’s called having an open mind as opposed to being perpetually afflicted by some bad experience in the past.

    Oh, if you really want to get your rocks off by childishly distorting names, just fill your boots. It’s not clever and adds little to your case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Doc (91 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone discovered that the Waikato Tribes had already sold the rights to the water?
    Oh. Wait… http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/wr-hide-sight-what-if-maori-already-sold-water-lf-133930

    From the 1865 deed of sale:

    Me ona rakau (With its trees)
    me ona kowhatu (its stones/minerals)
    me ona wai (its water)
    me ona awa nui (its rivers)
    me ona roto (its lakes)
    me ona awa ririki (its streams)

    me nga mea katoa o taua whenua o runga ranei o raro ranei i te mata o taua whenua
    (and all appertaining to the said land or beneath the surface of the said land)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kowtow (8,470 comments) says:

    The perpetual Treaty issue can be solved fully and finally with a referendum.

    It will never happen and the train will run for ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Got any wording for your referendum question kowtow? How many signatures do you reckon you will get? Would it be easier to start a political party instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flipper (4,060 comments) says:

    Nooki or whatever

    You just do not get it.
    You, and all your crew, are attempting to relitigate matters that have already been decided.
    You continually attempt to re-open, and relitigate, matters on which there can, nor will be, further meaningful debate.

    If you will not listen to reason, nor read and learn from actuality, rather than speculation / misrepresentatiion (even of the Privy Council) / lies / bullshit, then ridicule is requried to get your attention. Nevertheless, it seems to have at least got your attention.

    In your message you raise only two matters of interest to me: Jones and Thomas.

    R E Jones, Mr or Mrs Nooki, does draw water, and have influence. You do NOT.

    Thomas (the case, the outcome and the injustice to Thomas) , Mr or Mrs Nooki, has so many similarities to Bain, that if you really understood what happened to Thomas, and how it was eventually put to rest, you would not be campaigning for the bullshit JFRB idiots.

    Give it up: it was either Elvis or the dingo. Either way, Binnie was right, Collins and her stalking hofse (the ***** judge) will go down the tube.

    Oh, one further point. Is Tamahere next? :)

    Go back to sleep. I am going to get a rainbow for dinner. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    By passing the court of appeal is interesting. Maybe we will have a system whereby appeals will either stop at the court of appeal but really important cases go direct to the Supreme Court..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    Why would they here a “vexatious litigant” ???????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Do you know what a vexatious litigant is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    VEXATIOUS= not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy the defendant.

    If we didn’t have a spineless government they would be seeking to recover costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Feel free to vote for a different government that will apply your view of how the courts should be run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    ‘It is good that the Supreme Court granted leave to bypass the Court of Appeal. This means that if they do not uphold the appeal, the the partial sales can proceed on time.’

    And if they do uphold the sales the Crown have no higher Appeal.
    On a pragmatic basis of having the opportunity to have another bite at the cherry if the case is lost: better to have one up the sleeve than none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – no use having one up the sleeve if you’re the crown. They know it will go to Supreme Court anyway – if they lose they’ll send it there themselves, if they win it will get appealed. No point in wasting the time of the lower court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Yes.

    But ‘step by step’ is the pragmatic route and not one of over confidence.

    Earlier post should have said ‘if they do not uphold the sales.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Flipper

    I really am afraid you have completely flipped your lid. I am not campaigning for anyone. I am not trying to re-litigate anything. I have a pretty good understanding the PC decision and have not misrepresented it anywhere. You are on the wrong thread in so many different ways. Take your bile elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    R E Jones, Mr or Mrs Nooki, does draw water, and have influence. You do NOT.

    Bob Jones – a businessman, boxing aficionado and columnist raconteur – knows more, and has more influence, in matters of law and legal process, than Nookin – lawyer.

    It’s not flipper – it’s flipped

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote