Search Results

1. LCRO 40/2023 DG v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (13 March 2024) [pdf, 497 KB]

   ...firm advised that the applicant would raise with the Partner his retirement from the trustee role. [72] The matter was clearly expressed in that way because the applicant could not unilaterally retire. The retirement of trustees is governed by s 101 of the Trusts Act 2019. Trust B had two trustees (the Partner and the applicant) and the trust deed did not give any person the power to remove trustees. [73] In those circumstances, the applicant could retire only if the Partner, as t...

2. Hill v Smith - Motatau 2 Section 21B1B1 and Motatau 2 Section 21B1B2 (2015) 99 Taitokerau MB 98 (99 TTK 98) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...3 71 Taitokerau MB 17 (71 TTK 17). 4 CIV 2013-485-1561. 5 Application A20140010625. 6 282 Rotorua MB 117 (282 ROT 117). 7 Ibid. 8 98 Taitokerau MB 157 (98 TTK 157). 99 Taitokerau MB 101 Savage as he maintained that order was made in error. As such, I adjourned the second application for succession sine die to allow the s 45 application to be filed. [11] On 24 February 2015 Mr Hill filed an application as per s 45 o

3. Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 Block (2013) 82 Waiariki MB 202 (82 WAR 202) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...3 Naera v Fenwick – Whakapoungakau 24 (2010) 15 Waiariki MB 279 (15 WAR 279). 4 Wall v Karaitiana - Tauhara Middle 15 (2007) 85 Taupō MB 225 (85 TPO 225) 5 Affidavit of Wahiao James Gray sworn 13 November 2009, at 101 82 Waiariki MB 207 [149] While I accept that Mrs Fenwick did not deliberately set out to benefit herself and her family, it was inappropriate for her to participate in the decision making. With respect, she ought have known better,

4. Byrnes v ACC [2014] NZACA 16 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...there was no such new employment or incapacity. The incapacity was continuous from July 1985, hence the July 1985 wage rate should be used. THE LAW [20] An appeal lies to the Authority against certain decisions of a review officer (sections 101, 107 Accident Compensation Act 1982 – “the Act”). Such an appeal lies in this case. An appeal is by way of a rehearing, with all findings of fact and law at large. [21] Notwithstanding the repeal of the Act (and its predecessor,...

5. KC v LF LCRO 046/2012 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...sanction. [49] Importantly, the legislation does not provide that a breach of the Rules must result in a penalty being imposed. That approach, if followed, would overlay the 4 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305. 9 disciplinary process with a rigidity and inflexibility that is not sanctioned by the legislation. [50] After receiving a complaint, the Standards Committee may, at first step, exercise its discretion to t...

6. LCRO - 2014 annual report [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...Under section 211 of the Actl the LCRO can confirml modify or reverse any decision of a Standards Committee. The LCRO also has the powerl under section 2091 to direct a Standards Committee to reconsider a decision. In the reporting year: • 101 decisions of Standards Committees were confirmed by the LCRO. • 36 decisions were modified by the LCRO. Modifications included: o 9 findings of unsatisfactory conduct. o 5 instances where compensation orders were made. o ~ instance whe...

7. BORA Maritime Powers Extension Bill [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...Bill of Rights Act if it can be considered reasonably justified in terms of s 5 of that Act. However, the Supreme Court has held an unreasonable search logically 3 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. cannot be demonstrably justified and therefore the inquiry does not need to be undertaken.4 In assessing whether the search and seizure powers in the Bill are reasonable, we have co...

8. Lett - Waipu 4A3E1 (2021) 431 Aotea MB 100 (431 AOT 100) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...Raimapaha Rei left a will dated 6 December 1985 and probate was granted on 9 June 2005. Mr Brown has submitted a letter dated 1 February 2001 where, in essence, he contends that Mr Lett may not be receiving a fair value for his 431 Aotea MB 101 interest in the lands he seeks to gift to Mr Waitai. Mr Lett in response to Mr Brown’s letter simply said, “I just need to get this over and done with so I can move on with my own life”. Te take Issue [3] The issue for deter...

9. 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

10. 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...