Tikanga in Developing the Common Law of Contract

• Pages: 1–31
• Date: 01 January 2025
• Published date: 01 January 2025
• Author: Julia Harper-Hinton,Jodi Gardner
• Subject Matter: Derecho Público y Administrativo

1

TIKANGA IN DEVELOPING THE COMMON

LAW OF CONTRACT

Julia Harper-Hinton* and Jodi Gardner**

Abstract

ere h as been limited disc ussion of tikanga i n the l aw of o bligations in Aotearoa.

Considering the judicial engagement with tikanga in S mith v Fonter ra and Ell is v R,

this article explores the potential role of tikanga in the dev elopment of the commo n

law of contract. It highlights the key themes in settler common law, namely the (over)

emphasis on freedom , the val ue of proced ure, the l ack of con cern regarding unfairness

or ineq uality, and the rejection of good faith. ese themes are largely groun ded in the

approaches of the United Kingdom. e relationship between contract law and tikanga

remains to be seen. is ar ticle considers how results under ti kanga could interact

with the settler law of contract. ree scenarios are outlined: (1) supporting settler legal

principles; (2) illuminating or gap-lling; or (3) challenging legal principles. e article

does not advocate for spe cic legal change but does, how ever, provide a starting point for

promoting an addi tional approach to contract l aw in Aotearoa.

* Lectu rer, Facult y of Law, Universi ty of Auckl and. Ou r sincere t hanks t o Maureen M alcolm ,

Anar u Erueti an d Claire Ch arters for r eviewin g earlier dr afts and t heir very helpf ul comment s.

All err ors remai n our own. For a ny queries , please cont act jul ia.ha rper-hi nton@auc kland.

ac.nz.

** Bria n Coote Cha ir in Privat e Law, Faculty of L aw, University of Auc kland.

2 [Vol 32, 2025]

I. Introduction

Smith v Fonterra is a g round-breaki ng case in several w ays;1 it provides hope for

environm ental lawyers, recon siders the role of nuisance, h ints at the possibilit y of

a novel climat e change tort , and engages wi th tikang a in a meanin gful and nua nced

manner. Thi s artic le focuses on the emer ging role of t ikan ga in the developm ent

of private law pr inciples in Aot earoa’s lega l landsc ape. We focus par ticula rly on

contract law, an over looked but import ant area of l aw for every person in t he country.

We enter into contr acts every day – often w ithout thinki ng of it. Having a law t hat

ensures cont racti ng can be done on a fa ir and f ree basis is c rucial for so ciety in

Aotearoa Ne w Zealand. Th is article eng ages with the L aw Commission’s He Poutama

Study Paper w ith two li mited, but i mporta nt purposes. F irst, t o highli ght key themes

in exist ing common law contract pr inciples, and s econdly to pro vide an outl ine of

                 

law principles , as a source of law when the common l aw of contract is engaged . The

purpose of t his ar ticle is not to pro vide subst antive re commendation s of what the

           

experts r espondin g to the ind ividua l facts. In stead, we ob serve how ti kanga m ay

interact w ith the settler l aw of contract.

There has been l ittle di scussion of ti kang a in the law of obl igations , despite

the law’s impac t on pre-exist ing v ulnerabi lities i n our societ y.2 This makes t he

discussion a nd application of Ellis v R and Smith even more impor tant.3 We do also

note that jud icial recogn ition of tika nga withi n the current cons titutiona l structu re

raises f undament al div isions of thou ght and some deepl y held conviction s. It

is therefore impor tant at t he outset t o recogni se the lim itation s of this a rticle.

                    

principles follow ing recent developments in judicia l recognition, it is i mportant to

keep these development s in perspective. These development s are occurrin g within

1 Smith v Fonter ra Co-Operative G roup Ltd 

2 We do note however th at there has been work on t he relationship wi th the common law more

        

                     

             

Does Taka more Mean for Tika nga? Takamore v Clarke     

             

Wai L Rev 74; Nata lie Coates “The R ecognitio n of Tikanga i n the Common Law of New Z ealand”

      Elli s v R: A Revolu tion in Aotearoa Ne w Zealand,

 

3 Ellis v R (Continuance) [202 2] NZSC 114, [20 22] 1 NZLR 239 .