Search Results

1. Hakiwai - Owhaoko C1, C2, C4, C5, and C7 (2016) 52 Takitimu MB 130 (52 TKT 130) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...part, and accordingly, directions are issued at the end of this judgment. Background [9] Owhaoko C1, C2, C4, C5 and C7 blocks are the corpus of Owhaoko C Trust. This trust has been before the Māori Appellate Court previously (ironically on the appeal of Mr Karena) including in 2004 where a useful summary of the trust lands can be found: 1 The Land comprises five separate blocks the details of which are set out below. It is administered by an ahu whenua trust, the Owhaoko C7 Tru...

2. Hunia v Hunia - Whiritoa Rangitaiki 603B4B2 Block (2020) 247 Waiariki MB 27 (247 WAR 27) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...says is now long outstanding for repayment. [19] With the Family Court proceedings currently on foot concerning the Will of the deceased, there are limits on what can be achieved through this Court, pending the resolution of that claim and any appeals. Even so, it seems probable that the debt to Keld will be proven and is likely to remain the largest single estate liability, pending the outcome of the challenge to the Will. 8 Affidavit of Respondent Keld Hunia in Support of Notice...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Elia [2017] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...the Registrar of the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [29] 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. _______________...

4. Selwyn v Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board - Opape 1A19B (2019) 220 Waiariki MB 94 (220 WAR 94) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...be followed, he submitted. First, the application must have been made within 28 days unless the Court is satisfied it could not reasonably have 7 [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012) Appeal 1 at [18]-[25] mailto:kingwairata@gmail.com 220 Waiariki MB 98 been made sooner. The second step is for the Court to consider where the interests of justice lie having regard for the circumstances. Mr Hemi submitted that none of...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 084 Rangitane o Tamaki v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. [2021] NZEnvC 084 appeals under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN RANGITANE O TAMAICI NUI-A-RUA IN CORPORA TED AND AND Court: Hearing: Appearances: Date of Decision: Date of Issue: (ENV-2019-WLG-000018) JOHN BENT (ENV-2019-WLG-000019) Appellants MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL Ap...

6. [2019] NZEnvC 122 Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited & others v Otago Regional Council [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Court: Hearing: Memoranda lodged by: Date of Decision: Date of Issue: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 122 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals under clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Act OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (ENV-2016-CHC-103) ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (ENV-2016-CHC-102) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATE...

7. Fisher v Foster (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 54 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...[30]–[32]. [18] Striking out is often the appropriate course where the statement of claim is prolix and unintelligible. See Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679. At [84] the Court of Appeal set out the requirements of a statement of claim (High Court Rules 2016, rr 5.17, 5.26 and 5.27). Those requirements apply equally in proceedings before the Tribunal. Specifically: [18.1] The pleading must be accurate, clear and intelli...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Kennelly [2020] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...but took no steps. He did nothing about his obligation having assigned the matter to the ‘too hard basket’. [18] His submission was that undertakings given to the Tribunal must be taken seriously. He relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society1. The Court said at paragraph [48]: There may be cases where a breach of an undertaking may not warrant some form of disciplinary action, but such cases are likely...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...had started receiving income for legal work and completing associated false declarations shortly after she had been disciplined by the Tribunal in February 2012 for overcharging for legal aid work, and subsequently while that decision was under appeal. [6] Mr Davey, for the Standards Committee, while acknowledging that no clients appear to have been harmed by the practitioner’s actions, submitted that the conduct was still at “the most serious end of the spectrum” as found by...

10. 2021-07-05 MFE- Closing Submissions [pdf, 551 KB]

    ...relief sought. 14.3 The Minister (as well as the local authority and Attorney-General) have greater flexibility in terms of the scope of their submissions. Section 274(4A) limits the evidence which may be called to within the scope of the appeal, inquiry or other proceeding. Most s 274 parties face a further restriction in s 274(4B) and may only call evidence on matters arising out of the person’s submissions. But the joinder status of the Minister is not subject to s 274(4B)...