Whether property is non-rateable — whether property is included in Waitangi Tribunal claim Wai 384 — whether defendant has breached a duty of care regarding preservation of historical buildings — nationally significant natural area — payment of rates — Fenton Agreement 1880 — Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 ss 7 & 8, Schedule 1, Part 1, cl 3 — Royal New Zealand Council for the Blind v Auckland City Council [2007] NZSC 61 — Tait v Rotorua District Council HC Rotorua B28/94. The court was asked to determine the plaintiff's liability to pay rates on his property, as well as a claim that the defendant council had breached its duty of care with respect to the preservation of historical buildings. The court first dealt with the two arguments raised by the plaintiff regarding the issue of rates. The first argument was that the property qualified as being "non-rateable" as it met the criteria in clause three of schedule 1 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. The court disposed of this argument on the basis that it was not owned by an "associate of persons" simply because more than one person owned it as the clause relied upon must be read in its full context; nor was it properly being used for "preservation purposes". The second argument as to why the plaintiff should not be required to pay rates on the property also failed. The plaintiff had argued that there was a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 384, that included the land; however the land was not still within the ownership of the claimant group and was subject to the Local Government (Ratings) Act. In respect of the claim that the defendant council had breached its duty of care regarding the historical buildings and alleged fraudulent misapplication of government funds, the court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring a claim in relation to property that he did not own. Each of the claims brought by the plaintiff failed and the defendant council was found to be entitled to costs. Judgment Date: 11 December 2017.