Ngati Apa v Attorney-General was a landmark legal decision that sparked the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy.

The case arose from an application by eight northern South Island iwi for orders declaring the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds Maori customary land.

[127] Judge Hingston in the Maori Land Court gave an interim decision on a preliminary question favouring the iwi.

[3]The lowest common denominator of the four judgments is “crystal clear”: property rights cannot be extinguished by a “side wind”.

Whether any such interests have been extinguished is a matter of law.In response to arguments by the Crown that there is a presumption of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed, Elias CJ cites a number of examples of nineteenth century legislation and evidence from Chief Justice Fenton acknowledging Maori customary rights below the low water mark.

"[15] On the Territorial Sea Acts they additionally observe, "legislative measures claimed to extinguish indigenous property and rights must be clear and plain".

Tipping J restates the problem with the reasoning in In Re the Ninety Mile Beach, [207] The learned Judge proceeded, however, in his next paragraph to say that:“.

the rights of the Maoris to their tribal lands depended wholly on the grace and favour of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who had an absolute right to disregard the Native title to any lands in New Zealand, whether above high water mark or below high water mark.”[208] It is at this point that I consider, with respect, that His Honour's reasoning started to go wrong.

Having become part of the common law of New Zealand, it could not be ignored by the Crown unless and until Parliament had clearly extinguished it, and then only subject to whatever might have been put in its place.