Search Results

1. 29 Unit Owners in The Anchorage [2012] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...as a home, whatever form the home takes. [8] North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 2076242 (Spencer on Byron) considered the issue of whether a duty of care was owed in the context of a mixed use complex. The majority of the Court of Appeal concluded in the circumstances of that case to impose a duty of care in a mixed use complex solely in respect of the residential component would not be fair, just and reasonable. To do this, they noted would be to: Impose different...

2. BORA Corrections Administration (Effectiveness and Efficiency) Bill [pdf, 352 KB]

   ...freedom and an affront to human dignity. [6] Strip searches are inherently degrading and can be considered an affront to the person being searched, particularly when devices or instruments are used to illuminate or magnify areas. The Court of Appeal has said that the “touchstone” of s 21 is the protection of reasonable expectations of privacy. [7] It follows that the greater the degree of intrusiveness, the greater the justification required and, further, the greater need for...

3. Apostolakis v Gilbert (Late Interlocutory Applications) [2017] NZHRRT 54 [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...function of the Tribunal. We can see no possible basis for taking the extraordinary step of removing all or part of these proceedings into the High Court. [15.3] If Mrs Apostolakis is unsuccessful in her claim against Mr Gilbert, she has a right of appeal to the High Court. On such appeal she can raise any question of law which then genuinely arises for determination on the facts as ultimately found by the Tribunal. In the meantime the ordinary statutory process must be allowed to...

4. Cross - Horowhenua 9A6B1 (2016) 355 Aotea MB 199 (355 AOT 199) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...Act that a transfer of Māori freehold land was unlawful, as it did not conform to the provisions of the Act. They argued that in those circumstances ownership of the land should therefore revert back to the transferor. [21] In dismissing the appeal, the Court referred to the decision of the High Court in Warin v Registrar-General of Land and noted: 14 [69] The Warin decision measures the relationship between the LTA and Māori land legislation, and traverses well-known preced...

5. Canterbury District Law Society v Wood [2009] NZLCDT 11 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...publication of detail relating to a suspension order is mandatory, so make no further order under s.134 of that Act. [28] We record that this decision is the unanimous decision of all members of this Tribunal. [29] Mr Wood has given notice of appeal against our decision of 21 August 2009 finding him guilty of misconduct in his professional capacity. Accordingly the orders we have made above shall not come into force until 18 October 2009. That will give Mr Wood time to seek appropr...

6. Auckland District Law Society v Dorbu [2009] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...when the various decisions were made to bring charges against Mr Dorbu and 30 September 2008 when the charges were eventually filed. [15] Mr Pidgeon relies upon the decision of Chow v Canterbury District Law Society [2006] NZAR 160, Court of Appeal, to support his contention that the delays are such as to justify dismissal of all charges. THE AUTHORITIES [16] The relevant portions of the Chow decision, in the view of the Tribunal are as follows: “[26] We are in no doubt that...

7. Lamberth - Heru Te Kaumaiwa Manning Whānau Trust [2014] Chief Judge's MB 365 (2014 CJ 365) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...rehearing, the Court may affirm its former detelmination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate COUlt shall not commence to lUn until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the COUlt. Case Law [9] In the Maori Appellate COUlt decision of Edwards v Whakatohea ]vf{lOri Trust Boari t...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 206 Awesome Art Ltd v Milne [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...mentioned that a challenge had to be filed within 28 days. 9 Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [36]–[37]; The Court held that where a litigant takes steps to exercise the right of appeal within the required timeframe (including advising the other party), but misses the specified time limit by a day or so as a result of an error or miscalculation and applies for an extension of time promptly of learning of that error...

9. Wirihana-Tawake v Tawake - Rangitatau 1D5A1 Reserve (2021) 432 Aotea MB 122 (432 AOT 122) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...removal unless the evidence is so compelling as to a 4 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 5 Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233) 6 Pook v Matchitt - Matangareka 3B [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2019 APPEAL 167) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM127010#DLM127010 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM127016#DLM127016 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Reed [2017] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 160 KB]

    ...[34] The Tribunal does not consider that an order for further training is necessary. [35] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________...