Clumsy legal drafting saw government mistakenly write in a ten million dollar discount on price of properties being purchased by Te Atiawa as part of its $87 million Treaty settlement. A court order was needed to correct the error, with Te Atiawa protesting government should be held to its written word.
Tribal members of Te Atiawa live primarily in Taranaki and Wellington. In a 2014 Treaty claims settlement, Te Atiawa agreed to $87 million government compensation with 52 government owned ‘landbanked’ properties made available as part-payment in kind. It was agreed these properties were available for purchase by Te Atiawa at market price with one exception: a twenty per cent reduction in price would apply to any purchase of the New Plymouth Courthouse; a symbolic acknowledgement of the wrongs suffered by Te Atiawa at the hands of a colonial legal system. In negotiations however, it was clear government was looking to minimise this financial loss by requiring a twenty per cent discount on market rents when Te Atiawa leased the site back to government.
The High Court was told a drafting error in their Treaty settlement agreement saw the twenty per cent purchase discount being available not just for the Courthouse, but on purchase of all 52 landbanked properties. Representatives of both Te Atiawa and government signed, unaware of the mistake. Four years later, government recognised the error and contacted Te Atiawa. Government should be held strictly to terms of the contract it had signed, Te Atiawa said.
In the High Court, Justice Clark ordered the contract be rectified to correctly express their prior agreed terms. Te Atiawa had neither noticed nor relied on the mistake, she said. The document did not accurately reflect what all parties had agreed in pre-settlement negotiations.
The court was told that prior to the High Court hearing, Te Atiawa had already purchased most of the landbanked properties, paying market price. But these purchases were made on the basis that it would get money back if the court ruled Te Atiawa was entitled to the stated discount.
Pouto v. Attorney-General – High Court (1.04.21)
21.065