Search Results

1. Kupa v Kupa - Lot 10H and 101 Pt Omahu 2C1C (2020) 85 Takitimu MB 189 (85 TKT 189) [pdf, 251 KB]

   85 Tākitimu MB 189 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TĀKITIMU In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Tākitimu District A20200007366 WĀHANGA Under Section 214, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Lot 10H and 10I Pt Omahu 2C1C I WAENGA I A Between MARE REIHARANGI KUPA (SENIOR) Te Kaitono Applicant MARE REIHARANGI KUPA (JUNIOR) Te Kaiurupare Respondent Nohoanga: Hearing

2. OJI-Fibre-Solutions-NZ-Limited-84-85-86-90-91-92-94-96-97-98-99-100-101-102.pdf [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Limited v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-000098); (k) Beef & Lamb New Zealand Limited v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL- 000099); (l) Waikato and Waipa River Iwi v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-000100); (m) Auckland Waikato and Eastern Fish and Game Council v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL000101); (n) Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated v WRC (ENV- 2020-AKL000102). 2. NATURE OF INTEREST 2.1 As the owner and operator of Kinleith Pulp and Paper Mill, Tokoroa. OjiFS is an entity with an interest in the proceedings th...

3. MLC Kaikoura 2 Block - Original Owners [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...Kaikoura 2 NTAC Block 24 K24 Te Maia HAEATA 1A3 of 2 1C of 2 (1942) 10 of 2A(1949) 25 K25 Te Rangimarie Whanaupani HAEATA 1A3 of 2 1C of 2 (1942) 10 of 2A(1949) 26 K26 Te Rito HAEATA 1A3 of 2 1C of 2 (1942) 10 of 2A(1949) 27 K27 Tuihana HAKARIA Issue is K101 Riria te Rongopatahi 28 K28 Rihari HEMERA 19 of 1A 29 K29 Hoani Te Wanikau TAPIHA 3C of 2 1C of 2 (1942) 10 of 2A(1949) 30 K30 Tauira HOHEPA 1C2 (1949) 1C2 (1951) 31 K31 Mere IHAIA WARUHE Issue of K96 Ratima Waruhe 32 K32 Hoani TE REWETI H...

4. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Elia [2017] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...1 A person who has been convicted of a crime of dishonesty within 10 years of applying for a licence is not eligible to hold a licence: s 37(1)(a) of the Act. 2 Morton-Jones v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804, at [101]. [9] Mr Elia accepted that he could have prepared an informal appraisal for Mr and Mrs B, but submitted that he had already given them an informal appraisal, in his email at 8.11 pm on 28 October. [10] Mr Elia said that at that t...

5. [2020] NZIACDT 35 - NZQA (Seavor-Cross) v Jin (7 August 2020) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 [33] There are no submissions from the complainant or the adviser. [34] No party has requested an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [35] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1....

6. BORA - Abortion Legislation Bill: Attorney-General's opinion [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...Depending on the result of the anatomy scan, further testing may be required to check for congenital abnormalities. 7 2 B v Waitemata District Health Board [2017] NZSC 88, [2017] 1 NZLR 823 at [101] and n 121. 3 Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at [109]. 4 Law Commission Alternative approaches to abortion law: Ministerial briefing paper (NZLC MB4, 2018) at para 4.74. 5 Ministry of Health “Screening...

7. NTT v Gong [2019] NZIACDT 56 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 6 [30] There are no submissions from the complainant. [31] Ms Gong has produced a statement of reply, dated 11 January 2018, together with submissions from her counsel of 19 January 2018 and an affidavit from...

8. Provisional figures - August 2019 [pdf, 766 KB]

   ...Asian Māori Pacific European and other Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate 2007/2008 21 5.93 87 15.39 24 9.05 408 13.26 2008/2009 10 2.82 95 16.81 26 9.81 400 13.00 2009/2010 22 6.21 105 18.58 31 11.69 383 12.45 2010/2011 19 5.36 101 17.87 22 8.30 416 13.52 2011/2012 19 5.36 132 23.34 31 11.69 365 11.24 2012/2013 28 7.90 105 18.58 24 9.05 384 12.48 2013/2014 22 4.66 108 18.04 26 8.79 373 11.25 2014/2015 16 3.39 130 21.72 27 9.12 391 11.80 2015/2016 39 8.27 129 2...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 74 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...[reopening determination]. 7 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 171 [reopening judgment]. 8 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2021] NZCA 13 [CA judgment]. 9 Reopening judgment, above n 7, at [24]. 10 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2021] NZSC 101 [SC judgment]. The parties agree on factors to be considered [10] As both parties note, in dealing with an application for leave to extend time, the overarching consideration is the interests of justice.11 The specific factor...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 232 Kang v Saena Company Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

    ...Relevant to the present case is the observation made by the full Court in Fagotti that there is significant value in a commonly applied, and well published, notional daily rate for costs in the Authority.21 19 Rangitaawa-Kaui v UBP Ltd [2022] NZERA 101 at [11]. (The Authority did award an extra 0.25 for submissions lodged after the meeting, but there is no indication, at least in the determination, that this is commonplace). 20 PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [20...