Search Results

1. Karaitiana v Carroll – Matahiwi No 4B, Waipuka 2R Sec 3 and Waipuka 3A3A (2014) 29 Takitimu MB 214 (29 TKT 214) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...support or opposition was then undertaken, based on the available evidence, which revealed the opposite outcome, as the following tables confirm: 7 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428); 8 See Reid v Trustees of Kaiwaitau 1 Trust (2006) 34 Gisborne Appellate Court MB 168 (34 APGS 168) and Brown v Māori Appellate Court (2001) 1 NZLR 87 9 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428); 10 Bidois v T...

2. Fapiano v Tarau (2013) 24 Takitimu MB 46 (24 TKT 46) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...associated with the land: (d) Other owners of the land who are members of the hapū associated with the land: (e) Whāngai of the testator: (f) Trustees of persons referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of this section. … [22] In the Court of Appeal in Kameta v Nicholas considered s 108(2)(c).6 The issue was whether the Nicholas children were related by blood to Mr Kameta. The Court of Appeal considered that: [26] … the phrase “related by blood” is not intended to...

3. Auckland Standards Committee v Murray [2015] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...cancel her fee. [d] We further note the tragic circumstances of this man’s death, and its reported effects upon Ms Murray, were relied on by her as a mitigating feature in her District Court sentencing. [22] All three of these decisions were appealed by Ms Murray to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (“LCRO”) and were upheld in all but minor respects. Ms Murray’s conduct in attempting to delay or thwart the process of review by the LCRO followed a similar pattern of la...

4. CAC 20005 v Drever [2014] NZREADT 101 [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...6.1 to comply with fiduciary obligations to the client. [10] The context was an auction process of February 2011 where the defendant failed to advise the vendor that the settlement date did not accord with the vendor’s instructions. After an appeal to this Tribunal by the vendor, penalty was settled on the basis of a reimbursement payment of $1,463.15 from the defendant and a co- offender. [11] The second previous case was about a property purchaser on 20 November 2011 misled by th...

5. Kapohe Family Trust v Cleland [2012] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...CIV-2009-404-1880, 19 November 2009. that scale when calculating quantum.9 In this case I consider that the High Court scale is more appropriate as the amount claimed exceeds $800,000. [29] In Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation10 the Court of Appeal identified three approaches to costs: a) The standard scale applies by default where cause is not shown to depart from it; b) Increased costs may be ordered where there is a failure by the paying party to act reasonabl...

6. Te Wani v Peters - Te Puru No 5 (2016) 124 Waikato Maniapoto MB 272 (124 WMN 272) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...situation, the degree of success achieved by the respondent and the time required for effective preparation; 5 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64). 6 Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Takitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184). 7 Manuirirangi v Paraninihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64). 8 De Loree v Mokomoko – Hiwarau C (20...

7. EHQ v NKN [2013] NZIACDT 65 (20 September 2013) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...he has been required to evaluate the complaint, and he provides the Tribunal with the information and analysis that justified the exercise of his statutory power. [42] The Registrar’s decision to reject or not pursue a complaint is subject to appeal to this Tribunal pursuant to section 54 of the Act. [43] The Registrar’s role in referring a complaint to this Tribunal is outlined in paragraphs [36] to [42] above. He is not simply exercising administrative duties at the direction of...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 169 Robinson v Gillon & Maher Plumbing Ltd [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...extent that it is reasonable to do so bearing in mind the proceeding is at an early stage. d) There must be a balancing of the interests of the parties. This is often an overriding consideration; it was authoritatively summarised by the Court of Appeal in AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows: 5 The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order...

9. BORA Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...not-for-profit. [6] This is a far more limited approach and if adopted would mean that the s 17 right is not engaged by the proposal. 14. The House of Lords fox hunting decision suggests a possible third approach in the United Kingdom. While the Court of Appeal adopted a similar approach to the Canadian cases, and examined whether the prohibition on fox hunting targeted the “associational character” of the activity, [7] the House of Lords [8] instead appears to have focussed on...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 100 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 366 KB]

    ...parties involved, but future plan users. [29] Although these are declaratory proceedings, we find principles that have been applied in other RMA contexts of some relevance here. Costs are not usually awarded against Councils in the context of s120 appeals unless it can be shown that they have neglected a duty. 30 It is even more unlikely that costs will be awarded against Councils in plan appeals and it has been held that a relatively high threshold has to be reached before an award...