Search Results

1. B v ACC [2012] NZACA 5 [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...appears to have minimal adverse impact upon the appeal process or the integrity of the Act, and there does not appear to be any prejudice to the Corporation. [54] The test of abuse of process also favours the appellant, even though there is no affidavit evidence to support the reasons for his delay, as it is apparent from the available evidence that the appellant was not consulted before the appeal was withdrawn and that he was wrongly informed by the Registry that a fresh decision was...

2. Dr Donald Stevens QC’s second report on claim by Tyson Gregory Redman for Ex Gratia compensation [pdf, 8.5 MB]

   ...first appeal. The issue is how much responsibility for this rests with the claimant, as opposed to his counsel. 32. It should first be noted, however, that while there would be no impediment to the ev idence from the eight affiants, who provided affidavits for the royal prerogative application, being used at the first appeal, there would have been an issue about whether evidence from some of the affiants could have been used at the trial. Two of the affiants - s 9(2)(a) and s 9(2)(a)...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 008 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...(meaning inferences) rather than on anything stated in any part of the AUP or related background documents. That is also the position for its reference to the intentions of the IHP. The same can be said for the theories advanced in the Council's affidavit evidence about these matters. 10 See 5 above. 14 [70] As such, we do not agree that applying an integrated management approach would give rise to any untoward or unacceptable consequences. For instance, even in cases where...

4. [2018] NZEnvC 008 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...(meaning inferences) rather than on anything stated in any part of the AUP or related background documents. That is also the position for its reference to the intentions of the IHP. The same can be said for the theories advanced in the Council's affidavit evidence about these matters. 10 See 5 above. 14 [70] As such, we do not agree that applying an integrated management approach would give rise to any untoward or unacceptable consequences. For instance, even in cases where...

5. LCRO 85/2016 BA v FE [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...order is much more time-consuming than simply agreeing a date and inserting a brief clause to that effect in a relationship property agreement. Without wishing to overstate the obvious, as a minimum it involves preparing pleadings (including an affidavit in support), filing and serving the proceedings, complying with Court timetables and directions, and discussing or negotiating matters with the other side. [123] Mr FE carried out all of those steps efficiently and competently. He...

6. Family Lay Advocate and Court Registry Handbook [pdf, 579 KB]

   Lay Advocate and Court Registry Handbook Family Court First Edition | June 2020 Contents Introduction to the Family Court 4 Introduction to Care and Protection 5 The Family Group Conference .......................................................................................... 6 Outcomes of care and protection proceedings .................................................................. 6 Overview of process for care and protection proceedings ............

7. LCRO 98/2019 EL v SV, DV & JV (31 March 2021) [pdf, 510 KB]

   ...could have been mitigating features (remorse and insight) …. We refer to the supplementary submissions of the Standards Committee where [Mr EL’s] lack of cooperation is noted as follows: “… At no stage did [Mr EL] file any written response or affidavit evidence to the charge…”. [78] In an earlier decision, the Tribunal had also commented upon Mr EL’s lack of engagement.16 13 Paul Collins “Lawyers’ duty to co-operate” (2014) 844 LawTalk 28; see also Parlane v New...

8. Winitana v Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board - Lake Waikaremoana [2021] Chief Judge's MB 615 (2021 CJ 615) [pdf, 568 KB]

   2021 Chief Judge’s MB 615 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE TAIRĀWHITI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Tairāwhiti District A20190003880 CJ 2019/17 WĀHANGA Under Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Lake Waikaremoana I WAENGA I A Between VERNON WINITANA Te Kaitono Applicant ME And WAIROA WAIKAREMOANA MĀORI TRUST BOARD Te Kaiurupare First Respondent

9. Tau v Tahere - Rangihamama X3A (2016) 137 Taitokerau MB 68 (137 TTK 68) [pdf, 494 KB]

   137 Taitokerau MB 68 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20130002088 UNDER Section 18(1)(a), 19 and 20(d), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangihamama X3A and Omapere Taraire E (Aggregated) BETWEEN RANIERA TE TEINGA SONNY TAU, BRUCE ARNOLD CUTFORTH, TAOKO WIHONGI, TE TUHI ROBUST AND COLLEEN BIRMINGHAM- BROWN AS TRUSTEES OF THE OMAPERE TARAIRE E AND RANGIHAMAMA X3A AHU WHENUA TRUST Applicants

10. LCRO 275/2015 and 9/2016 YM v SC and JW (18 December 2018) [pdf, 286 KB]

    LCRO 275/2015 9/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards [X] Committee BETWEEN YM Applicant/Respondent AND AND SC Respondent/Applicant JW Respondent (LCRO 9/2016) DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr YM has appl