"I don't have a problem with Mrs Awatere-Huata but it is the process which was used, it wasn't kosher," he said.
Legal counsel for the trust, Mathew Lawson, said the trust's order gave it the power to manage who it employed.
"The order says the trustees are entitled to do everything they are able to do as owners of the land, that includes engaging a manager to manage the property," Mr Lawson said.
"There's nothing on the trustee order which stipulates that all positions, such as Mrs Awatere-Huata's, or others, have to be advertised."
Mr Henare said such a high-profile role as the executive officer needed to be advertised so the trust could review the skills and experience of a number of candidates to make sure it had made the best choice.
"If the job of executive officer didn't have to be advertised by the trust, then why did it go ahead and advertise the lower position of officer manager?" Mr Henare said.
Current trustee George Sullivan was also called to give evidence for the applicant. He told the court a trustee had invited Mrs Awatere-Huata to present to one of the trust's meetings and then an interview was set up for a later date to see if she was suitable for the job.
Mr Sullivan told the court he did not attend the interview meeting because he wasn't uncomfortable with the way the trust was looking to hire Mrs Awatere-Huata.
Previous submissions made by Mr Ratima said the executive officer's position would cost about $110,000. Mr Sullivan yesterday said he could not say with any certainty, whether or not the trust even had a budget to pay the wages of the new role.
Mr Sullivan said Mrs Awatere-Huata had been paid a sum of money on April 12 for services to date, just a day before the court granted interim injunction.
The applicant alleges the trust could not properly show when and how much trustees were paid. There were questions around adequate minute taking of meetings and the administration of licences for hunting on the trust's property.
Honey given by Arataki Honey, which has hives on the trusts's property, had not been distributed to shareholders.
The trust had cut the rent paid to it by a fishing group it allowed right of entry to waterways on its land because the organisation had a poor year operating.
It also came under fire for not getting the best deal from a communications company which had a lease agreement for a receiver station on the trust's land.