Amended statement of claim for Wai 762 specifically for the stage 1 homelessness phase of the inquiry, 27 Nov 20
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Thirteenth amended statement of claim of Evelyn Kereopa, 6 Mar 23
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
D Naden / S Roughton (Wai 762, Wai 1531, Wai 1886, Wai 2863, Wai 2869, Wai 2893 & Wai 2894), Memorandum of counsel filing amended statements of claim, 13 Dec 19 (Also recorded as Wai 2575, #3.2.179)
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Memorandum-directions of the Acting Chairperson registering amended statement of claim of Evelyn Kereopa, 1 Jun 23
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Memorandum-directions of the Deputy Chairperson registering amended Statement of Claim, 3 Aug 18
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Amended Statement of Claim, 29 Jun 18
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Amended Statement of Claim, 13 Dec 19 (Filed by D Naden / S Roughton)
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
Memorandum-directions of the Deputy Chairperson registering amended statement of claim, 16 Jan 20
Waimiha River Eel Fisheries (King Country) claim
The Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report
Te Pakakohi Mandate and Negotiations claim
In its Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report, released in November 2000, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown’s decision to accept the right of Ngāti Ruanui to settle historical claims in south Taranaki on behalf of Pakakohi and Tangahoe was ‘safe’.
The Tribunal found that the claimants, the Te Runanganui o Te Pakakohi Trust Incorporation and the Te Iwi o Tangahoe Incorporation, had not demonstrated a mandate to represent Pakakohi and Tangahoe in settlement negotiations. By contrast, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence that the Crown’s decision to recognise the mandate of the Ngāti Ruanui negotiating body to represent these groups was ‘unsafe’.
The two claimants groups had alleged that the Crown’s decision not to negotiate separate settlements with them was in breach of the Treaty. However, the Tribunal found that the overwhelming majority of Tangahoe and Pakakohi people supported the proposed settlement.
The claims were heard in November 2000 by the Tribunal as a matter of urgency after the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui had signalled an intention to sign a $41 million settlement that month. The Tribunal had earlier that year attempted to resolve the matter by facilitating a mediation process between the parties, but that process had been unsuccessful.
In endorsing the Crown’s mandating decisions, the Tribunal nevertheless recommended that discussions between the parties continue in order to find ways to better express the importance of the Pakakohi and Tangahoe traditions to Ngāti Ruanui in the deed of settlement.Were those traditions not factored in, said the Tribunal, a real danger would exist that ‘the Pakakohi and Tangahoe identities would be written out of Taranaki history’. That, said the Tribunal, would create a fresh grievance out of the settlement of an old one.