For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".

[4] Consequently, the appellants sought a declaration in the High Court that the Crown, to the extent it had ownership of the Waikato riverbed, it held it as a constructive trustee for the descendants of the original owners.

[5] Secondly, they argued by the principle of ad medium filum they had acquired title of the non-navigable parts of the river and denied any breach of equitable or fiduciary duties.

The prior question is whether it is shown that the riparian owners whose titles were investigated by the Native Land Court had themselves the property in the riverbed upon which the presumption depends.

If the mid-point presumption was consistent with Maori custom, that is, in my view, inconsistent with the Crown acquiring title in breach of a fiduciary duty, even if it were established that one was owed.

This is not to say that the courts should not, where circumstances require, consider the need for development of the common law of New Zealand in relation to the reciprocal fiduciary obligations that the Crown and Maori owe to each other.

"[13] Justice William Young also held that the appellants' claim that Native Land Court titles to riparian blocks included the riverbed to its midpoint was "at least doubtful".

Professor Richard Boast wrote in the Maori Law Review, "At the time of writing (September 2014) the full implications of these observations were difficult to assess, but certainly seemed to be potentially far-reaching".

"[17]Another article on the judgment noted, "The decision casts real doubt on whether the beds of rivers that are culturally important to Maori are included within adjoining riparian titles.