Search Results

1. Akura Lands Trust v Te Whata – Akura 1C 3B 2 (2014) 29 Takitimu MB 199 (29 TTK 199) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...applications. An urgent hearing was sought in respect of both. [3] The first application was for an injunction against Manu Te Whata 1 . Mrs Te Whata was formerly a trustee but was removed (along with five other trustees) in 2010 (and upheld on appeal in 2011) 2 . [4] The injunction sought to prevent Mrs Te Whata from entering on the Akura lands administered by the Trust and carrying out any unauthorised acts on the lands. The Akura lands outside the curtilage area occupied by Mr...

2. Trustees of the Horina Nepia & Te Hiwi Piahana Whanau Trust v Ngati Tukorehe Tribal Committee & Tahamata Incorporation (2014) 319 Aotea MB 238 (319 AOT 238) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...its successor (NTTC) is the legal owner of the 3,781.28 shares in Tahamatā Incorporation transferred by Paora Te Hiwi on 30 August 1978. 1 At the conclusion of that decision I invited counsel to file submissions as to costs. I note that the appeal and rehearing period has now long since expired. [2] Ngāti Tukorehe Tribal Trust (NTTC) and the Incorporation filed a joint memorandum as to costs dated 3 February 2014. NTTC do not seek legal costs against the whānau trust as they we...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 8 Q v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...principles of open justice, the effect of which is that, except to the extent that any legitimate exception is made out, courts are required to dispense justice in public. 8 In Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Attorney-General the Court of Appeal held: 9 Despite the importance attached to these basic concepts there have been occasional situations of a particularly pressing kind which have led to a court sitting in camera. Sometimes there has been statutory authority fo...

4. Taueki v The Trustees of Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Trust (2011) 274 Aotea MB 191 (274 AOT 191) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...liberal award may well be made in the discretion of the judge, but there is no invariable practice; and 2 Nicholls v Nicholls - Part Papaaroha 6B Block (2011) Mäori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64) http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-appellate-court-sittings/2011/Part%20Papaaroha%206B%20Block.pdf http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-ap...

5. CAC10017 v Xu [2013] NZREADT 16 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...which satisfies the purposes of the Act. [20] After the conclusion of the hearing and before this decision was issued the High Court delivered a decision in Kumandan v Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] 6 NZHC 3555. This decision was an appeal against a finding of the Tribunal that Mr Kumandan was guilty of misconduct under s 73 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. The penalty imposed upon him was that his license be cancelled. The Court determined that in determining the...

6. Application for approval to provide legal aid services [pdf, 680 KB]

   ...Level 1 Criminal Provider approval Level 2 Criminal Provider approval Level 3 Criminal Provider approval Level 4 Family Mental Health Māori Land Court and Māori appellate Court Waitangi Tribunal Refugee and Protected Persons Court of appeal and Supreme Court employment advocate Specified legal services Duty Lawyer Police Detention Legal assistance (PDLa) i am applying for approval as a supervised provider in the following areas of law: Civil Criminal Family...

7. Scott - Erueti Te Karu [2014] Chief Judge's MB 260 (2014 CJ 260) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Section 48 (1) is set out below as follows: 2014 Chief Judge’s MB 268 48 Matters already finalised or pending (1) No order made by the Chief Judge under section 44, or made by the Appellate Court on appeal from any such order, shall take away or affect any right or interest acquired for value and in good faith under any instrument of alienation registered before the making of any such order. 22. Based on these two factors, the appli...

8. FT v NSC LCRO 260 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...reason is simply as provided in the preceding paragraph – namely that I did not consider there was any strength in his application. It is difficult to see what further reason need be provided. [17] UQ has subsequently referred me to a Court of Appeal decision (Taylor v The Queen [2010] NZCA 628) where the Court applied earlier authorities that the giving of earlier adverse rulings, even adverse findings of credibility, will only “in the rarest of circumstances” (Muir v Commiss...

9. Wooten v Dorr [2012] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...role and the disclosed invoices from Mr Dorr to the Wootens clearly illustrate that margin, at a rate of six per cent, which was an addition on all such invoices. [17] The law is clear. In Bowen v Paramount (Hamilton) Limited1 the Court of Appeal held that “contractors, architects and engineers are all subject to a duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage to persons who may or should reasonably expect to be effected by their work.” Chambers J stated in Body Corporat...

10. IG v HC LCRO 101/12 (3 June 2015) [pdf, 47 KB]

    ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review hearing [22] Ms IG attended a review hearing in [City] on 27 May 2...