Search Results

1. Bayne v Ngati Rehua Ngati Wai ki Aotea Trust Board - Ngatirehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust (2015) 115 Taitokerau MB 41 (115 TTK 41) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...refer to Aotea itself. As noted above, Judge Spencer’s finding could not have related to the whole island given that the island contains parcels of Māori freehold 18 Ibid at 109. 19 Ibid at 110. 20 da Silva - Islands and Rocks off the coast of Aotea (1998) 25 Auckland MB 212 (25 AT 212) at 212. 21 Ibid at 242 115 Taitokerau MB 56 land, Crown land, and other private land interests which are inconsistent with th...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC evidence chief Sam Shumane [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...CONCLUSIONS 109. In conclusion I agree with the Applicant’s traffic specialists on the issue of traffic generation, parking demand and supply and accept that the public areas have ample spare parking capacity to accommodate the overspill. 110. However based on my analysis above and the information available to me I conclude that there are uncertainties with regard to the actual impact of the marina traffic in the management of Ocean View Road and I therefore Page 21 315...

3. National Standards Committee v Poananga [2012] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...acknowledgement by each applicant that states: “I make this application as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal claimant group detailed in this application. If I knowingly make any false statement or representations I commit an offence under section 110 of the Legal Services Act 2000. I have received a completed copy of this application form from my lawyer.” 15. The Ministry (and former LSA) regards these declarations as an important part of ensuring that Waitangi claims are appr...

4. ENVC Matiatia expert witness planning 2014 [pdf, 700 KB]

   ...the transport, natural character and other recorded values of the Matiatia area. g. Policy 6(2) (d) in relation to the car park being located in the CMA generally and whether it has a functional need to. 9 Planning Joint Witness Statement 110 OS considers that the car park does not need to be located in the CMA, and an option in the mixed use area needs to be considered. NB reiterated that there is still a question of what alternatives may exist to reclamation within the CMA....

5. Satnam Singh v Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor [2015] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Whereas the test for the first limb is objective, the test for the second is subjective. See by analogy the sexual harassment provisions in s 62(2) of the HRA and the analysis of that section in DML v Montgomery [2014] NZHRRT 6 (12 February 2014) at [110]. [38] It is not permissible to ask whether a “reasonable Indian” or a “reasonable Indian of the Sikh faith” would find the language or physical behaviour hurtful or offensive. The question is whether this particular plaintiff...

6. Waratah Trust v CAC 20004 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 20 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...93 and 100 makes it clear that a limited jurisdiction is conferred. Section 93(1)(f) does not empower a Committee to order a licensee to make payments in the nature of compensatory damages. That is a power which is given to the Tribunal under s 110, but to a limit of $100,000. [59] Section 93(1)(f) empowers a Committee to make orders directed at the taking of actions. So, a Committee may order a licensee “to rectify, at his or her or its own expense, any error or omission”. Rect...

7. October 2015 Outstanding applications [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...A20100009982 45/93 Deputy Registrar CJ 2010/47 - Jane Smith also known as Jane McKenzie or Jane Parapa or Jane Parepa or Jane Fraser - an succession orders made at 44 Wellington MB 228- 229 on 15/07/1966 - Application to the Chief Judge A20100011029 45/93 Iwi Courtney CJ 2010/52 - Ohuirua 2 - and easement orders made at 74 Whangarei MB 93 on 29/01/93 - Application to the Chief Judge A20100011141 45/93 Peggy Anne Gamble CJ 2010/78 - Hopa Heremaia Trust - Application to the Chief Ju...

8. AB v FT LCRO 008/2015 (30 June 2016) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...nothing in the complaints of administrative misfeasance, that affect or have relevant influence on the conclusions reached in respect to the conduct inquiry. Overcharging [109] Mr and Mrs AB did not pursue this issue at the review hearing. [110] Mr FT has indicated that he has no intention to pursue recovery of the balance outstanding of his account. [111] I have considered the accounts rendered by Mr FT, and have, from reading the extensive information filed, a good understanding...

9. Chand and Kumari v Prakash [2012] NZIACDT 85 (3 December 2012) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...served by a secret process, and there is nothing in the Act indicating that it does create such a process. For the Tribunal to operate without being open and publicly accountable would not be in the interests of either the public or the profession. [110] Publication of the Tribunal’s decisions will follow as a matter of course. [111] In the present case Mr Prakash seeks non-disclosure of his identity essentially on the basis of his standing in the community and the impact on his fa...

10. JK v OC LCRO 254/2013 (10 February 2015) [pdf, 93 KB]

    ...vexatious. Mr JK was advised that the LCRO may consider imposing a costs order, if the matter progressed to a hearing without Mr JK clarifying the nature of his complaint. 11 At [19]. 18 [110] Mr JK was given an opportunity at the hearing to provide response to indication that a costs order was being considered. [111] It is important not to ignore the burden that these complaints have imposed on Mr OC, who has been the subject...