18523 items matching your search terms
...7 August 2018 DECISION OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 238 Introduction [1] This application filed by Claude Ketu, also known as Claude Turetangata Te Waa and Nina Pilkington (“the applicants”) pursuant to s 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 seeks to amend a succession order dated 14 October 1955 at 33 Tokaanu MB 251- 252 relati
...Mrs Williams also expressed the fear that the Mullens sought access for the purpose of, inter alia, opening their lands up for sale. [3] More impOltantly, Mrs Williams and the others in opposition have their own application for a roadway order filed in the name of Hongoeka Development Limited. She says that this company has been created to promote the development of a number of Hongoeka coastal blocks for the benefit of owners and their whfulau. The company's proposal involves,...
...the security footage. The letter noted that, with the conflicting accounts of what occurred, it could not be found, on the balance of probabilities, that ACC had disclosed the security footage to Mr Neser. [31] On 21 September 2016, Mr Mitchell filed a claim against ACC in the Tribunal. In his claim, he sought the sum of $5,920, being the legal aid debt he had been left with after seeking the ACC review. He also requested to be able to move on, for the security measures in respect of...
...date 16 March 2021 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA ISAAC Judgment of Chief Judge W W Isaac 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 133 Hei tīmatanga kōrero – Introduction [1] This application was filed by Mr Wallace King on 27 June 2016 under s 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (the Act). Mr King seeks to amend orders made at 108 Waikato Maniapoto MB 30-32 which granted succession to his half-sister Puti Wendy Hohaia Green (the dec...
...security of its position under the mortgage. The result achieved was reasonable. Given the potential complexity of the matter, including its difficulty or novelty, it was appropriate to engage Mr B to assist. Application for review [30] Mr HB filed his application for review on 2 November 2018. The outcome sought is a reversal of the Committee’s determination. [31] Mr HB submits: (a) The Committee’s reasoning was inadequate, and insufficient attention was paid to the deta...
...the Committee could take that matter no further; and (b) having examined the circumstances, the Committee could not conclude that Mr LT had, in refusing to act for Ms YN, breached any duties owed to her. Application for review [14] Ms YN filed an application for review on 17 September 2018. The outcome sought is that Mr LT be subjected to disciplinary action for professional misconduct, on grounds that he had breached r 4.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduc...
...standard industry practice; and (f) Any other appropriate conditions including health and safety, public liability insurance and environment. [10] On 19 November 2018, counsel for the first and second respondents, Justin Graham and Kiri Tahana, filed a joint interlocutory application to strike out the applicant’s claim. [11] On 7 December 2018, I held a teleconference with the parties to discuss evidentiary and timetabling matters.3 [12] The matter came before me on 28 March 20...
...in this instance, provided these documents to them.15 The documents provided are listed in the attachment to this decision. [52] Mr VT responded by way of a letter dated 31 August. He notes that the Committee considered a sample of Mr QR’s files but declined Mr QR the opportunity to address the Committee in person. He says that I am now in the same position as the Committee and that I am required to conduct a ‘substantive review’ of these files. He advises that Mr QR see...
...whether any professional obligations had been breached. [11] Ms TS’s complaint was managed by the Complaints Service through its early resolution process. Neither Ms NU nor Mr VL were required to provide a formal response to the complaint filed though they both were given opportunity to do so. Neither availed themselves of that opportunity. [12] The Standards Committee delivered its decision on 26 August 2019. [13] The Committee determined, pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawye...
...and 18 March 2017. This is incorrect. Ms C refers to the letter and certificate dated 28 March from Dr B. [39] Exhibit 28 to the Ministry’s report is an email that Ms C wrote to the Appeals Officer on 27 September 2017, after this appeal was filed. Ms C attaches file notes that she obtained on that day from the medical centre. The notes were made by Dr B on 28 March 2017 (the date of his second letter and disability certificate). [40] In this email, Ms C states, possibly in...