The respondents expressed doubt over Mr Howell and Ms Gardiner's suitability as trustees after they were elected on 28 January 2017. The respondents argued that as Mr Howell was in debt to the trust and Ms Gardiner was involved in business activities which could cause a potential conflict of interest, neither were suitable to act as trustees. In particular, the respondents noted a Tenancy Tribunal judgment on 20 April 2009, where it was found that Mr Howell owed a significant amount of rent to the Trust, part of which had not been paid.

Held, Ms Gardiner was appointed as a responsible trustee under s 239 of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, whilst Mr Howell's application to be a responsible trustee was dismissed.

Ms Gardiner's involvement with cultural and tourism related business activities should not disqualify from being appointed as a responsible trustee under s 222 of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Ms Gardiner's activities do not prevent her from complying with s 222 and any potential conflict of interest can be managed.

The Court noted Horsfall v Marino, where it was held unequivocally that any prospective or actual trustee cannot be indebted to a trust. As Mr Howell's debt was still partially unpaid, he could not be eligible for appointment as a responsible trustee.