Search Results

1. Bailey - Ngati Rahiri 1G1A and 1G1B (2004) 135 Aotea MB 158 (135 AOT 158) [pdf, 491 KB]

   ...New Maori Land would be a better economic unit given that the Applicants' Land is flat and therefore could be utilised more effectively as part of the proposed new block. Counsel has filed consents from a majority of the owners as well as an affidavit from Pereni Bailey Tupe, a sister of the late Mr Bailey, in support of the application. In the context of valuation, Mrs Tupe states in her evidence that if [lecessary some adjustment to the shares of her late brother in the Maori Land...

2. [2017] NZEmpC 100 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Arthurs [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...described in six numbered paragraphs. The company objected because it considered the requests were too broad, vague, the documents requested did not exist, or what was asked for was not relevant. [10] Lyttelton Port’s objection was supported by an affidavit sworn by its industrial relations manager, Ms Sally Williams. Her evidence was that all of the documents that she had been able to obtain, by searching through Mr Arthurs’ file, had been supplied to him. Where no documen...

3. Parata v Lake - Ngarara West B3B (2004) 144 Aotea MB 105 (144 AOT 105) [pdf, 557 KB]

   ...counsel for Denise Parata ("the Applicant") filed an application for an interlocutory injunction ("the Injunction Application") pursuant to section 19 of Te Ture \Vhenua !vHiori Act 1993 ("the Act"). In her acc01npanying affidavit, she ciailned, in SUll1n1ary, that shares owned by her brother Ronald Lake ('"the Respondent") in Ngarara West B3B ("the Land") vvere in effect held on trust for herself and her siblings. The Applicant refene...

4. Abellera v Elizabeth [2017] NZIACDT 17 (20 Sept 2017) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...the matter. Furthermore, the adviser should appreciate that unless she can establish that a refund is not due, continued delay in making the refund will aggravate the complaint. Timetable [29] The adviser may provide evidence in the form of affidavits and submissions answering the complaint within ten working days of the issue of this interim decision. [30] The complainant and the Registrar may reply to the adviser within a further ten working days. [31] If any party seeks t...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 101 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...2 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2018] NZEmpC 73 at [7]. b) Issue was taken with evidence contained in the applicant’s supporting affidavit, in which it was stated that some collective agreements of MIA members contain rest breaks clauses similar to one of those which is before the Court for present purposes. But it was submitted that more fundamentally, the proper inte

6. [2021] NZEnvC 037 Ngai Tamahaua Hapu Committee v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 782 KB]

   ...[20] There were several other strands to the basis on which the Hapu Committee sought waivers. A range of concerns about the absence of consultation, or about the quality of such consultation as there was, were raised. The submissions and the affidavits filed in support raised issues concerning the authority or mandate of other bodies representing tangata whenua in the area of Opotiki. There were also issues raised about the title to the land on which the projects are being carrie...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Halse [2021] NZLCDT 7 (19 March 2021) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...actions in respect of the potential bank lending were a significant focus of the Standards Committee’s case. It was these (alleged) actions that were said to lift the matter into the category of misconduct. [5] Shortly before the hearing, affidavit evidence from an unaligned professional who had knowledge of material events effectively refuted that the practitioner had promoted the interests of client-sourced lenders above the interests of the complainant client. This led the...

8. Partridge & Anor as Trustees for the Partridge Family Trust v McClune [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...proceedings are based.” 19. In considering the applications for removal, I have taken into account all the information and evidence that has been presented to date. This includes the assessor’s report, the application filed with the Tribunal, the affidavits produced by the respondents and the statements and evidence copied and provided to the tribunal by the claimant. I note that exchange of documents has, by and large, taken place and that the claimant has had access to all...

9. Lee v Napier City Council [2010] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...submits that even if it was reasonable for the claimants to assume, when starting the proceedings, that the Trust was a developer, it ceased being reasonable to do so from the time of Greer and Shepher’s removal application supported by Greer’s affidavit dated 14 July 2006. [3] Mr Gray submits that his file record and the claimants’ pleading both make it clear that the claimants did not know if the Trust was a developer of the property as distinct from Angus and Julie B...

10. LCRO 153/2017 ACE v BDF (28 September 2018) [pdf, 199 KB]

    ...GIK’s counsel because of Mr BDF’s failure to act on her concerns. 4 At [15]. 5 [23] On Mr BDF’s advice Ms ACE had “only carefully hinted at [her safety concerns for HJL] in her first affidavit”. [24] With her application, she provided extensive notes about HJL’s behaviour, which she had provided to Mr BDF, but had not provided to the Committee to protect her daughter’s privacy. [25] The outcome of the review so...