Māori landowners in Nelson say $1b lost by Crown's broken promise

More than $1 billion is how much the descendants of Māori landowners in Nelson said has been lost as a result of a broken promise by the Crown.

A 10-week hearing started in the High Court in Wellington this week about the Nelson Tenths, which is the country's oldest property claim.

It's about an agreement in 1845 between the Crown and Māori customary landowners when Nelson was established.

Plaintiff Lawyer Karen Feint KC told the court: "This is not long forgotten history. The people sitting in the court are here because it was their Tupuna, their great, great, great grandparents who were wronged".

While Māori were promised 10% of the land and to keep places of cultural significance, that didn't happen.

It's a wrong that Rore Stafford has been trying to right for decades.

"This is a significant case," he said. "When this hearing is complete it will set the precedent worldwide. This is for everyone, even though we of Te Tauihu are leading it, at the end of the day it is for everyone."

Stafford is the plaintiff in the case, representing the other descendants, while Attorney General David Parker is the defendant on behalf of the Crown.

Crown lawyers gave a "mini-opening this week, briefly laying out a variety of defences, but will lay out their case in full next week. The Crown emphasised it wants to restore the relationship with local Māori.

One of the arguments made was that the treaty claims process is the appropriate way to resolve these issues. The descendants disagree, saying that's a political remedy.

Feint said they wanted any land still owned by the Crown returned and compensation was also being sought. She told the court that the losses incurred by the customary landowners over the years is more than $1 billion.

"The point we really want to stress in opening is that the Crown's duties have not evaporated in the mists of time. They remain outstanding," she said.

The case has been heard in various courts in recent years, and in 2017 the Supreme Court found in the descendants' favour, sending it back to the High Court. It's an unusual case as it's based on trust law and that the Crown breached the original agreement.