18490 items matching your search terms
...22 January 2015 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 17 March 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG 98 Taitokerau MB 258 Introduction [1] On 8 April 2014 Darling Wikitoria Todd filed an application to appoint trustees to the Mahinepua B1 Māori Reservation (“the reservation”). On 22 January 2015 I appointed the responsible trustees to the reservation. 1 The remaining issue for determination is whether advisory...
...creation of the ahu whenua trust are the property of the ahu whenua trustees and I should be making an Order pursuant to s242 for payment out to them. If I have misread the Respondents case and they do contest those monies, the Respondents shall file a memorandum advising me of that within 14 days. [28] I reserve the issue of costs but would advise the Respondents that I have a preliminary, but by no means fixed view, that costs should fall where they lie. Pronounced in open Cou...
...require a report from a surveyor under s 69(2) with payment pursuant to s 98(9)(b). John Dewes and Herman Jahnke may work with the Registrar and surveyor to have this work and report completed. [3] The application for an occupation order filed by Herman Jahnke is dismissed. Background [2] As can be seen the orders for partition and the occupation were made subject to survey and s 304. A meeting of owners was held on 6 October 2014 on Waipiro MT Section 5 Block X and di...
...and modified them by imposing our own findings of unsatisfactory conduct against Ms Claydon we accordingly invite submissions from counsel as to penalty. [20] The submissions from the appellant and the Complaints Assessment Committee should be filed within 10 days of the date of this decision. [21] Counsel for the second respondents will have a further 10 days to respond to those submissions. The counsel for the appellant will have a further three 6 days to make any co...
...“Apparently Abandoned Land”. The notice advised that any land that is declared to be abandoned in terms of s 77(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 would be sold or leased by RDC pursuant to that Act. [3] The Deputy Registrar filed the application on the basis that the Court has previously dealt with succession to the current named owner of the block and that if the status of the land were changed to Māori freehold land the Court could vest the block in thos...
...circumstances, I am bound by the Court’s finding on 3 December 1963 that Kepa Whanga’s only issue was Te Anga. If the Whanga whānau consider that the 1963 evidence was wrong and that the Court’s order was in error, then they will need to file an application under s 45 of the Act to correct the situation. In the absence of such an application, I must proceed on the basis that Kepa Whanga’s only child was Te Anga. [23] Consequently, the interests that Kevin is not entitled to...
...The appointment agreement was inadequate and did not protect either party from what subsequently ensued. (d) I have had regard to the comment from the Company that it should be able to recover its arbitration costs from AAD. However, it has filed no counterclaim seeking this, and it is hard to create a direct causal link between the failure of the conciliation and the arbitration costs given the complexity and nature of the dispute. Having said that, some opportunity has undoubte...
...represent Mr Fox and Ms Skerrett-White per ss70 and 98 of the Act. Mr Bidois is to submit an appropriate estimate for approval as soon as possible. Mr Fox will need to confirm that he is ineligible for Legal Aid. That will involve Mr Bidois filing an appropriate application on Mr Fox’s behalf before any grant of Special Aid can be contemplated for Mr Fox. [23] I note that Ms Skerrett-White expressed concern that the Court’s earlier judgments were now in the public domain. As...
...Apiata, said on their behalf that they had been given incorrect notice of the hearing and had turned up at Court the day before. However, 62 Taitokerau MB 117 the previous day’s Court hearing was in Kaitaia and there is nothing on the Court file to suggest that Mr Rameka or Ms Taituha were given notice that the hearing was on 3 July. Furthermore, no one else in Court suggested that their notice had been in error. [8] Mrs Baker attended the second hearing and expressed once...
...Although the appellant did not lodge an appeal in relation to the Benefits Review Committee decision of 29 July 2014, relating to the 26-week limit on paying New Zealand Superannuation while he was in Samoa, we think it appropriate to extend time for filing an appeal and treat this appeal as also relating to that issue. In the first instance, therefore, we have addressed the issue of payment to the appellant in Samoa. [19] The only basis on which the appellant could be paid New Zealan...