Mercury NZ Ltd v Māori Land Court - [2026] NZCA 91

Appeal - Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 - Land Transfer Act 1952 - Maori Land Court - jurisdiction -
statutory interpretation- customary rights - indefeasibility - decision

From 2002 to 2009, certificates of title in respect of parts of the bed of the Waikato River (the River Bed) were issued to the Crown. The titles are now held by Mercury NZ Ltd (Mercury), or the Crown for the benefitof Mercury. Twelve hapū and the Pouākani Claims Trust No 2 (together, the Pouākani claimants) claim tikanga rights, interests and responsibilities in relation to specified areas of the River Bed, its waters and adjacent lands. In 2019, they filed a claim in the Māori Land Court.

The Pouākani claimants' claim:
(a) the River Bed land is Māori customary land and therefore is or should be vested in the Pouākani claimants (the customary land claim);
(b) the Crown holds title to the River Bed as a fiduciary for the true customary Māori owners, the Pouākani claimants (the fiduciary duty claim); and
(c) the Pouākani claimants own the river water flowing over the River Bed, and the Māori Land Court can issue a declaration to that effect (the water claim).

Mercury applied to strike out that claim. The Māori Land Court declined the strike-out application. Mercury applied to the High Court for judicial review of that decision. The High Court determined that the Māori Land Court has no jurisdiction to inquire into fiduciary duty claims to General land or Crown land and no jurisdiction to make declarations about the ownership of water, but allowed the Māori Land Court to consider the customary land claim. The Pouākani claimants appeal and cross-appeal the decisions about jurisdiction regarding the water and fiduciary duty claims. Mercury and the Attorney-General appeal the decision about the customary land claim.

Issue 1: Does the Māori Land Court have jurisdiction to consider the water claim?
Held: no. The position in te ao Māori that water is inherently interconnected with land does not support the Māori Land Court having jurisdiction to consider a claim relating only to water under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (the Act), where there is no land with any legal status on which to ground the claim within the Act. The text, context, and purpose of the Act, including its interpretation in light of tikanga, and the case authorities, are not consistent with the Māori Land Court having jurisdiction under the Act to determine claims to water irrespective and independently of the status of associated land. The water claim may be considered by the High Court.

Issue 2: Does the Māori Land Court have jurisdiction to consider the fiduciary duty claim?
Held: no. This Court is ordinarily bound by its own decisions. We do not consider the conditions here justify departure from the unanimous judgment of a full court of this Court in Attorney-General v Māori Land Court, which held that s 18(1)(i) of the Act does not extend to jurisdiction to hear fiduciary claims to General land or Crown land. The fiduciary duty claim may also be considered by the High Court.

Issue 3: Is the customary land claim untenable?
Held: Yes. On the basis of the text of the Act, considered in the context of case law before and since, and its legislative history, it is crystal clear that Parliament did not intend to create Māori customary land as an exception to indefeasibility under the LTA regime. Case law in respect of the clash between earlier versions of the LTA and earlier versions of the Act whereby Māori customary land was registered without going through the Act's processes was resolved in favour of the LTA. All case law since points in the same direction - that customary title or rights are not an exception to the indefeasibility of registered title. Nor is there any express statement in the Act nor material indication in its legislative history that in passing the Act, Parliament intended to change the relationship between the LTA regime and the Māori land law regime.