|
''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that considered whether “usque ad medium filum aquae”, the common law presumption that the purchaser of land adjoining a stream or river also obtains ownership of the waterway to its mid—point, applied to the Waikato riverbed adjoining blocks of land at Pouakani, near Mangakino. For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".〔 The decision has been described as "explosive" because it could lead to a flood of litigation concerning ownership of riverbeds, and because the stretch of river the case was concerned with contains three hydroelectric dams owned by Mighty River Power: Arapuni, Maraetai and Whakamaru. ==Background== Initially the appellants had sought customary ownership of the riverbed in the Maori Land Court. But the claim was blocked by the 1962 Court of Appeal decision, ''Re the Bed of the Wanganui River'' () NZLR 600 which, "assumed that ownership of the riverbed had been determined, and customary rights extinguished, when ownership of the neighbouring riverbank was investigated by the Native Land Court. This earlier precedent also assumed that the common law presumption of ''ad medium filum aquae'' applied." In consequence the appellants went to the High Court seeking relief for breach of fiduciary duties. The appellants claimed on behalf of descendants of members of hapu who had been awarded interests in land adjoining the Waikato River by the Native Land Court in the late 19th century.〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ().〕 According to Chief Justice Sian Elias summary; "The appellants asserted in the High Court that the vesting of Pouakani No 1 and the Crown acquisitions of the other riparian blocks gave the Crown ownership of the bed of the river to the middle of the flow (“''usque ad medium filum aquae''”), by operation of a conveyancing presumption of English common law."〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ().〕 The appellants claim was that Maori vendors could not have understood this concept and as such the Crown had breached "fiduciary or equitable duties of disclosure and fair dealing".〔 Consequently, the appellants sought a declaration in the High Court that the Crown, to the extent it had ownership of the Waikato riverbed, it held it as a constructive trustee for the descendants of the original owners.〔 The Crown's case was firstly, that the riverbed of the navigable parts of the river were vested in it by the Coal-mines Act Amendment Act 1903 and subsequent statutory provisions.〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ().〕 Secondly, they argued by the principle of ''ad medium filum'' they had acquired title of the non-navigable parts of the river and denied any breach of equitable or fiduciary duties.〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ().〕 Finally, the Crown argued that the passage of time barred the appellants case.〔 The appellants failed in the High Court and the Court of Appeal on various grounds, with both courts ruling that the Waikato River as a whole was a navigable river.〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ()-().〕 However, in a preliminary decision in 2012 (''Paki v Attorney-General (No 1))'' the Supreme Court ruled that the Waikato River was not navigable in the stretch of river in contention, making the Crown's first argument redundant.〔''Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)'' () NZSC 118 at ().〕 As such the Supreme Court was forced to rule on four points of law in this case, the most important of which was, "()id the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands?"〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Paki v Attorney-General (No 2)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|