Search Results

1. The Trustees of the Tauwhao Te Ngare Trust v Shaw - Tauwhao Te Ngare Block and a preliminary decision of the Chief Judge at 2013 CJ 567 [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 394 (2014 APPEAL 394) [pdf, 377 KB]

   2014 Māori Appellate Court MB 394 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20130009145 APPEAL 2013/8 UNDER Section 49, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Tauwhao Te Ngare Block and a preliminary decision of the Chief Judge made on 9 August 2013 at 2013 Chief Judge's MB 567-594 BETWEEN THE TRUSTEES OF THE TAUWHAO TE NGARE TRUST Appellants AND DONALD SHAW Respondent Hearing:

2. [2017] NZEmpC 94 Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [pdf, 268 KB]

   CRIMSON CONSULTING LIMITED & UNITUTOR LIMITED v SAMANTHA BERRY NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 94 [3 August 2017] THE FILES HEREIN MAY NOT BE SEARCHED WITHOUT LEAVE OF A JUDGE IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 94 EMPC 48/2017 EMPC 88/2017 EMPC 150/2017 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CRIMSON CONSULTING LIMITED & UNITUTOR LIMITED Plaintiffs AND

3. Broome v Auckland Council [2017] NZWHT Auckland 1 [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...the CCCs for all work under the building consent. [100] The claim alleging the existence of the duty of care is orthodox. The law is settled that a Council owes such a duty of care when carrying out its statutory and regulatory functions.27 [101] The Trust alleges that in breach of that duty of care the Council: (a) Passed inspections of the deck membrane; (b) Passed the final inspection; (c) Failed to appreciate that the specified deck membrane had been changed from a TOM...

4. Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation - Matauri X Incorporation (2007) 120 Whangarei MB 52 (120 WH 52) [pdf, 9.4 MB]

   IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT Hearing: A20060021404 120 Whangarei MB 52-90 UNDER Sections 1 S(l)(a) , (b), (i) and 2S9 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Matauri X Incorporation BETWEEN DOVERSAAaUELS AND 2, 3, 6 July 2007 (Heard at Whangarei) Applicant MATAURI X INCORPORATION Respondent Appearances: Mr Greg Davis for the applicant Ms Deidre Watson for the respondent Judgment: 5 November 2007 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J A

5. [2017] NZEmpC 115 Schollum and Hastings v Corporate Consumables Ltd [pdf, 598 KB]

   ...complete week of inability to work or training. [100] In the Holidays Act 1981 the meaning of gross earnings included salary, wages, allowances or commissions. That must mean the combined remuneration earned by Ms Schollum and Mr Hastings. [101] Ms Cates submitted that the same arguments which were used to resist the case for the plaintiffs in dealing with the Holidays Act 2003 should apply in relation to the 1981 legislation. The submission was that the reference in s 4 of the 1...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 243 Ohau Protection Society Incorporated v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 16 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 243 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act OHAU PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (ENV-2018-CHC-005) Appellant WAITAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Commissioner K Prime Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: at Oamaru on 16 and 17 October 2018 Site visi

7. Witana v Tau - Omapere Taraire E (2019) 191 Taitokerau MB 1 (191 TTK 1) [pdf, 535 KB]

   191 Taitokerau MB 1 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT UNDER Sections 67, 236, 237, 239 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Omapere Taraire E & Rangihamama X3A Ahu Whenua Trust BETWEEN A20180002924 RACHEL WITANA and TAOKO WIHONGI Applicants AND RANIERA SONNY TAU, TE TUHI ROBUST, BRUCE CUTFORTH and COLLEEN BERMINGHAM-BROWN Respondents A20180002884 AND BETW

8. LCRO 275/2015 and 9/2016 YM v SC and JW (18 December 2018) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...costs. It was to the partners of [Firm 1] that Mr and Mrs SC looked for remedy, that remedy to be achieved by a refund of fees paid. [100] That view is consistent with the approach adopted by Mr and Mrs SC when first raising their concerns. [101] It was from the [Firm 1] partners (not the departed Mr JW and Mr YM) that Mr and Mrs SC sought redress. [102] It was the partners from the firm, not Mr JW or Mr YM, that responded to the concerns raised by Mr and Mrs SC. [103] The ex...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 009 Goodwin v Wellington City Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...notified.37 We will address those matters in due course but first identify two underlying legal issues arising under the public notification head. 35 Commissioner decision at [151] – [157]. 36 RMA s 95A(8)(b). 37 RMA s 95A(9)(a). 27 [101] The first arises as a result of conflicting approaches taken by the Court as to what satisfies the notification requirement. In Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust v Hawke’s Bay Regional Council this division of the Court found that if...

10. LCRO 174/2018 GL v TE (18 June 2020) [pdf, 296 KB]

    ...the consent form.43 Mr TE [100] Mr TE explains that Mr GL’s father had concerns about Mr GL's “monetary skills”, and was “opposed” to Mr GL “having any control or management of the funds” to be resettled on the trust. [101] His position is that Ms HN refused to attend to the resettlement from Mr GL’s father’s trust because with Mr GL as sole trustee, and appointor, the trust “did not meet” his father’s “requirements” for resettlement. He says M...