Notes on Case Study: Manaia v A Energy Ltd and Ors

Overview of Taika Manaia and His Fishing Rights

Taika Manaia is a kaumatua from Gisbourne, New Zealand, representing the age-old traditions of Māori fishing. For decades, he has been engaged in fishing snapper for both customary and commercial purposes. However, a significant change in environmental conditions has affected his ability to meet his fishing quotas. The critical issue stems from rising water temperatures, which are largely attributed to climate change, leading to a gradual decline in snapper populations. This decline threatens not just Taika's harvests but the entire food chain, impacting ecological balance.

Decline in Snapper Population

The statistics presented illustrate a worrying trend in snapper numbers over a five-year period: 10 tonnes in 2020, decreasing annually to 9.2 tonnes in 2024. Such significant declines pose challenges not only in fishery management but also threaten customary Māori fishing rights. Taika's fears extend beyond snapper, as he worries about the wider biological implications, including the health of the water and the now at-risk species that depend on a balanced ecosystem.

Climate Change and Snapper Migration

Research from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) supports Taika's concerns. As the waters warm, snapper are predicted to migrate southward, disrupting local fisheries and impacting the livelihoods of fishermen who depend on these species. The consequences of this migration are profound, as it exacerbates existing difficulties faced by local fishing communities.

Corporate Contributions to Climate Change

Taika's investigation into greenhouse gas emissions has revealed alarming facts: three major corporations—A Energy Ltd, B Mining Co, and C Dairy Partners—are responsible for approximately 30% of New Zealand's total emissions. Moreover, emissions from these companies have been rising by 2% annually over the last five years, which is critical, considering the current legal limits established by the Carbon (Not So Ambitious) Emissions Control Act 2020. Taika notes the absence of guidance regarding tikanga Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi in the Act, highlighting a gap in recognizing Māori perspectives in environmental law.

Legal Action Against Corporations

In response to these challenges, Taika has chosen to pursue legal action against the corporations based on the tort of negligence. To succeed, Taika must demonstrate several essential elements: 1) duty of care, 2) breach of duty, 3) causation of loss or damage, and 4) foreseeability of harm.

Taika also intends to utilize tikanga Māori principles to bolster his claims regarding the infringement of his customary fishing rights. He argues that these corporations owe a duty of care not only to him as an individual but to his community as a whole.

Court Proceedings: High Court to Court of Appeal

  1. High Court Ruling: The case initially heard in the High Court established that the corporations considerably contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, establishing a duty of care. Judge Canter recognized a sufficient link between emissions and the decline in fish populations but refrained from awarding financial compensation, suggesting that introducing concepts of tikanga would complicate the matter further.

  2. Appeal to the Court of Appeal: Taika's quest for justice continued with an appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that climate change is a global issue best left to political discourse, ruling that tort law should not govern such matters and that arguments based on tikanga had no relevance to negligence claims.

Supreme Court Appeal

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal decision, Taika escalated the case to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The corporate defendants argue against the existence of any duty of care owed to Taika while maintaining that tikanga principles should not be applied in the context of climate change negligence.

Core Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether a claim of negligence can be established based on the elements outlined earlier.
  2. The role of tikanga in supporting claims for negligence related to climate change, particularly focusing on the custom of fishing rights.

Relevant Case Law Authorities

The legal precedents relevant to this case include a range of judicial decisions addressing negligence and tikanga, highlighting the importance of established legal interpretations in tort law. Cases such as Smith v Fonterra and Couch v Attorney-General provide critical context and guidance for legal arguments.

Additional Notes for Mooters

  • A thorough understanding of tort law, especially the negligence criteria, is crucial.
  • When referencing past cases, it's essential to focus on binding versus persuasive authority, as higher court decisions are more influential.
  • Each participant in the moot should prepare to argue either the negligence aspect or the tikanga aspect, with the need for precise understanding of one’s assigned argument.