ā ori ) ▁Land ▁Court ’ s ▁investigation ▁of ▁dry ▁land ▁ad jo ining ▁the ▁for esh ore . ▁ ▁In ▁its ▁r uling , ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁found ▁that ▁" native ▁property ▁rights ▁are ▁not ▁to ▁be ▁ex ting u ished ▁by ▁a ▁side ▁wind .... ▁The ▁need ▁for ▁' clear ▁and ▁plain ' ▁ex ting u ishment ▁is ▁well ▁established ▁and ▁is ▁not ▁met ▁in ▁this ▁case . ▁In ▁the ▁Nin ety - M ile ▁Beach ▁case , ▁the ▁Court ▁did ▁not ▁recogn ise ▁that ▁principle ▁of ▁interpretation ". ▁The ▁r uling ▁was ▁for esh adow ed ▁by ▁academic ▁work ▁during ▁the ▁late ▁ 1 9 8 0 s ▁and ▁ 1 9 9 0 s , ▁which ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁Nin ety ▁M ile ▁Beach ▁case ▁was ▁wrong ly ▁decided . ▁ ▁Initial ▁responses ▁The ▁r uling ▁granted ▁only ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁purs ue ▁establish ing ▁an ▁interest . ▁Exper ts ▁such ▁as ▁Paul ▁Mc H ugh ▁of ▁Cambridge ▁University ▁stated ▁that ▁this ▁was ▁unlikely ▁to ▁result ▁in ▁full ▁exclusive ▁ownership , ▁however ▁these ▁ass ur ances ▁were ▁not ▁strong ▁enough ▁to ▁counter ▁the ▁per ception ▁that ▁the ▁door ▁was ▁now ▁open ▁for ▁M ā ori ▁to ▁claim ▁title ▁to ▁the ▁entire ▁coast line ▁of ▁New ▁Zealand ▁through ▁the ▁M ā ori ▁Land ▁Court . ▁The ▁prospect ▁of ▁a ▁successful ▁claim ▁was ▁reported ▁as ▁having ▁created ▁considerable ▁host ility ▁in ▁many ▁se ctors ▁of ▁society ▁as ▁New ▁Zealand ▁has ▁a ▁strong ▁tradition ▁of ▁public ▁access ▁to ▁be