Court clears way for High Court hearing on iwi coastal claims
A bid to halt a major High Court hearing over customary marine title rights along the Horowhenua and Kāpiti Coast has failed, after the Court of Appeal declined an urgent application for a stay.
The decision, released 8 October 2025, means the next stage of proceedings under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 will proceed as planned. The case involves competing claims by several iwi—including Muaūpoko, Ngāti Raukawa, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toa, Rangitāne, and Ngāti Apa—over rights to a 75-kilometre stretch of coastline, an area with a complex history.
At the heart of the dispute is the High Court’s “Stage 1A” decision, delivered on 9 June 2025, which granted recognition of exclusive or shared exclusive customary marine title (CMT) in specified areas to various parties from the Rangitīkei River to Whareroa (north of Paekākāriki). The Kurahaupō iwi, including Muaūpoko and their allies (Ngāti Apa and Rangitāne), had occupied the area for many hundreds of years prior to the 1820s. The Hekenga iwi—Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Raukawa, and Ngāti Toa—arrived in the 1820s and 1830s and are closely related by whakapapa.
The Stage 1A Decision granted Muaūpoko and Ngāti Tamarangi, with Ngāti Raukawa, shared exclusive CMT over certain areas, while Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Raukawa were granted exclusive CMT over other sections, subject to shared areas. Muaūpoko submitted that the effect of the decision was that CMT over the 75 km coastline was awarded to the Hekenga iwi, including approximately 60 km to Ngāti Raukawa, except for 4km shared with Muaūpoko.
Muaūpoko, supported by Rangitāne and Ngāti Apa, applied for a stay to prevent the Stage 2 High Court hearing—set for 29 September 2025 and focused on wāhi tapu sites and finalising CMT orders—from proceeding until their appeal was resolved. They did not seek to delay mapping the high-water mark along the coastline.
Opposing parties—including Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Raukawa, Te Whānau Tima and Te Hapū Mateawa, and Ngāti Toa—argued that a stay would cause prejudice, including the potential loss of elderly witnesses’ oral testimony and risk to funding, and would further delay proceedings that have already lasted eight years.
The Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered by Palmer J, found that the law—specifically section 113 of the Act—prevents any recognition orders from being sealed and taking effect until all appeals are determined, thus preserving the appellants’ legal position. The Court acknowledged the significance of the issues and the appeals, but concluded that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the High Court hearing to proceed, noting the risk of further delay and loss of witness testimony.
The application for a stay was declined. Costs were reserved.
This decision highlights the ongoing complexity of customary rights litigation under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, where legal, historical, and cultural claims intersect and where the stakes for iwi and hapū remain significant.
