The dispute dates back to the New Zealand Company’s purchase of 151,000 acres (61,107 ha) of land at Te Tauihu (the top of the South Island) in 1839.

It was part of a much larger purchase of 20 million acres (8 million ha) in the lower North Island and upper South Island and was confirmed at a meeting between Rangatira and the New Zealand Company in 1841. in Kaiteretere.

The main payment for the land was the reserve of one-tenth of the land allotted to Nelson, which was to be held in trust for the customary owners and administered as an endowment for their future benefit.

Following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, the New Zealand Company’s purchase no longer had any effect.

New Zealand Land Claims Commissioner William Spain recommended that the company be granted 151,000 acres in Tasman Bay and Golden Bay in 1845, but on condition that one-tenth be reserved and pā, urupā and crops be excluded .

The Crown obtained the land, including the Nelson Tenths, but only a third of the tenths had been reserved.

Further plots were taken, including the withdrawal of 47 tenths from the town as part of the redevelopment of Nelson township in 1847 and a grant of tenth sections to the Bishop of New Zealand in 1853.

The remaining 10,000 acres were never reserved.

“The reasons why these rural Tenths were not reserved are not entirely clear,” Judge Edwards said in her judgment.

“While there were difficulties in identifying suitable land for the rural sections, there is no doubt that there was sufficient land available to allocate the rural Tenths.

“It is possible that Governor Gray changed course from the Tenths plan towards a policy of providing large reserves for Maori occupation. However, as I find in this judgment, that change in policy could not relieve the Crown of its obligation to provide these Tenths.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the Government must honor the agreement reached in 1839.

The case was first brought by kaumātua Rore Stafford, on behalf of affected whānau, against the Crown in 2010.

Last year he returned to the High Court to examine the extent of the Crown’s breaches and remedies in the form of land and compensation.

Justice Edwards concluded that the Crown breached its duty by not reserving the 10,000 acres as expected; carrying out two land transactions that had been reserved; by not excluding pā, urupā and crops from eight of the approximately 72 claimed occupation land sites; and allocating tenths on pā, urupā and crops rather than reserving them from Crown lands.

“As a result of these violations, the Crown obtained land that should have been in trust for the customary owners, or that should have remained in customary ownership. “This land was taken and used by the Crown as if it were Crown land,” a High Court press release said.

The High Court found that, as a result, the customary owners suffered a loss of land and rents generated by that land.

What the customary owners were entitled to was still to be determined.

“The form of compensation cannot be resolved until the final area of ​​land to be returned and other issues (such as the application and calculation of simple interest) are determined,” the court said.

The customary owners requested the return of the land and compensation for losses, with a total sum ranging between $4.4 billion and $6 billion.

However, Judge Edwards concluded that the monetary award would likely be “substantially less than $1 billion” before interest.

“However, it will be a significant sum of money. “An award of this nature against the Crown is unprecedented in New Zealand and is a consequence of the Crown’s breach of its private law fiduciary duties to customary owners.”

Judge Edwards said this was a single issue and was unlikely to have wider-reaching effects.

“It is far from clear that this decision will have the broad and significant impact that the Crown fears,” the judge said.

“The duty stated by the Supreme Court is not a fiduciary duty that the Crown owes to Māori generally. Nor does it arise from the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a personalized duty that arises from a particular land transaction that took place in the 1840s and is decided according to principles of equity. The circumstances in which this duty arises are specific to each case, which necessarily limits the scope of application of this ruling.”

Mr Justice Edwards would now receive further submissions to resolve the issue of compensation to customary owners.

Subscribe to Daily Ha free newsletter curated by our editors and sent straight to your inbox every weekday.