Search Results

1. Tuwhangai v Boon - Kawhia U 2B (2018) 173 Waikato Maniapoto MB 99 (173 WMN 99) [pdf, 442 KB]

   ...transmission by survivorship of Mrs Ormsby’s joint interest in the 335.184 shares to himself. [6] Mrs Boon filed a letter of objection with the Māori Land Court on 4 September 2017. She followed that up by filing a notice of intention to appear and an affidavit in support dated 27 October 2017. [7] The first hearing of Mr Tuwhangai’s survivorship application was held on 22 November 2017.6 The application, at the Court’s prompting, was referred for mediation. A mediation...

2. LCRO 261/2016 TJ v DM and ZP (26 September 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...husband to pay all of her fees. [139] It remains the view of the lawyers that the settlement negotiated did provide significant compensation for costs. [140] It is clear that a substantial amount of time and effort was spent in preparing the affidavit evidence in support of (and responding to) the maintenance and relationship property applications. I think it likely that Ms TJ’s perhaps overly conscientious approach to addressing and responding to every issue in detail, may h...

3. Nikora v Trustees of Tuhoe - Te Uru Taumatua Trust (2021) 252 Waiariki MB 157 (252 WAR 157) [pdf, 342 KB]

   ...Court’s pending judgment to allow the new applications to be heard. Following the issue of directions and the agreement of counsel for the existing applicant, the Court agreed to hear the new applications prior to issuing a decision. [16] A joint affidavit concerning the applications of Buddy Nikora was then filed by Paki Nikora and Tiniwai Te Whetu, chairperson of Te Kaunihera, dated 8 January 2021. [17] The new applications were heard on 26 January 2021.9 TUT did not participa...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 100 Director-General of Conservation v Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency [pdf, 336 KB]

   ...Pascoes.47 Waka Kotahi’s position is that two thirds of those experts’ costs are properly attributable to the appeal by Poutama and the Pascoes. Waka Kotahi submitted the evidence of Mr Roan and the three witnesses who prepared confirmatory affidavits (John Hickman, Michael Copeland and Peter McCombs) can fairly be seen as being in response to the appeal by Poutama and Mr and Mrs Pascoe, and the Te Korowai appeal, in relatively equal measure. Both appeals raised planning matt...

5. LCRO 153/2022 YA v CK (16 July 2024) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...client may have his own view on these matters they are real and ones than can be pursued to address the failure of the testatrix in making her Will. … Of course I record my client’s right to record all the matters in her attached letter in her affidavit evidence and court proceedings should this matter proceed beyond Mr RQ and herself and she be forced to issue proceedings. … … While you and I will perhaps disagree over the quantum of the amount that my client will succeed i...

6. LCRO 103/2022 RP v DQ (25 September 2024) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...Committee for seven years. 4. “Why the Standards Committee has failed to adequately consider, pay any regard to our submissions and ultimately report upon our position in its notice of determination dated 23 May 2022…” Ms RP refers to the affidavit provided by Ms TJ and other submissions made by her. 5. Why the Committee has failed to investigate the conduct of Ms CY. Ms RP also expresses dissatisfaction with the report of the costs assessor (Mr FG). 6. Ms RP com...

7. Miller-Hard v Stewart [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...and to ask questions of all the witnesses. Evidence was given under oath of affirmation by the following: • Greg Miller-Hard, called by the Claimant; • Kerry Murphy, a building consultant, called by the Claimant; • Grant Honeyfield (affidavit admitted by consent), for the Claimant; • Nicole Miller-Hard; • Geoffrey Morrison, a carpenter involved on the original building, called by myself; Claim No 00765 – Miller-Hard

8. Wihelmus Hooft van Huijsduijnen v Woodley [2012] NZWHT Auckland 11 [pdf, 451 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-101-000028 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 11 BETWEEN RONALD ALOYSIUS WIHELMUS AND MARTINA HELENA MARIA HOOFT VAN HUIJSDUIJNEN Claimants AND EDWARD MERVYN JOHN AND LYNETTE ANNE CATHERINE WOODLEY First Respondents AND PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND ALAN GORDON MINTY (Removed) Third Respondent AND SAWREY CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND DONALD JOHN HAWINKELS Fifth Respo

9. Turner v University of Otago [2021] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 443 KB]

   ...Court Rules 2016, Part 8, there is no counterpart obligation under the PA 1993 to identify documents which cannot be found or to specify what they contained. [97.2] Similarly, the obligation to list documents for which privilege is claimed (see the affidavit of documents in Form G37 in the High Court Rules) is not carried over into the PA 1993 regime. GENERAL POINTS ABOUT THE TWELVE REQUESTS [98] The 12 “requests” pleaded in the ASoC are problematical for at least three reasons:...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 016 Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

    ~s0~;: / «' I ,--:,, -~ .~.;, ;;j j ,,?, {,• \~_:!: ··· ····.:-... ·, ......_: __ _ IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MA TIER OF AND AND BETWEEN AND Decision [2022] NZEnvC O If; the Resource Management Act 1991 a matter of appeals under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Act in a matter of Stock Exclusion-Topic 16 of the Proposed Northland Regional Council combination land and water p