Search Results

1. IW v SD LCRO 1 / 2011 (9 March 2012) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...instructed to act in relation to proceedings arising from a property transaction involving the Applicant. [3] It appears that the Applicant had summary judgement entered against it by the vendor of the property but that this decision was successfully appealed in the Court of Appeal at which the Applicant was represented by senior counsel and another 2 barrister. It further appears it was decided that for the substantive High Court proceedings senior counsel would be assisted...

2. Charteris v Rowe - Estate of David Charteris (2018) 181 Waiariki MB 108 (181 WAR 108) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...181 Waiariki MB 117 [40] Further, I agree with counsel for the respondent’s submission that this Court is estopped from determining the issue of entitlement to succeed as it has already been determined by the High Court. In the Court of Appeal decision of Kameta v Nicholas concerning entitlement to succeed to Māori land interests the Court of Appeal found that the principle of estoppel per rem judicatum applied in that:9 [44]…That rule applies to bar a party from disput...

3. Fredricsen v Hikuwai - Wainui D Block (2016) 143 Taitokerau MB 135 (143 TTK 135) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...agent, of rent, purchase money, royalties, or other proceeds of the alienation of land, or of any compensation payable in respect of other revenue derived from the land, affected by any order to which an application under section 45 or an appeal under Part 2 relates. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, any injunction made by the court under this section may be expressed to be binding on the Māori Trustee. (3) Any injunction made by the court un...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 89 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...possibility, making the point that the two challenges raised discrete procedural issues, which needed to be heard separately. [51] I agree with Mr Towner. The position is not unlike that which arose in Skinner v Stayinfront Inc.11 There, the Court of Appeal stated that it was logical and sensible to determine a preliminary issue ahead of a merits hearing, in the particular circumstances of that proceeding. [52] For the purposes of this case, I remain of the view, as was agreed wit...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 98 Premier Events Group Ltd Ors v Beattie [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...the Court filed on 31 March 2015. [12] A preliminary question arises, whether the Court now needs to determine whether to make orders as to costs in litigation that is not yet complete. Although it is true, as Mr Eichelbaum points out, that no appeals have been lodged against the Court’s judgment of 17 December 2014, and that the time for doing so has expired, the question of what damages may be payable by Mr Beattie to PEGL remains outstanding. I have recently directed that thi...

6. Naera v Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 (2017) 169 Waiariki MB 3 (169 WAR 3) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...are appropriate. 4 (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate MB 216 (7 APWH 216) 5 Monschau v Bambler – Tahorakuri A No 1 Section 33A2 Ahu Whenua Trust [2016] Maori Appellate Court MB 383 (2016 APPEAL 383) 6 See Karepa v Te Riini - The Kikorangi and Kareti Karepa Whanau Trust (2016) 144 Waiariki MB 3 (144 WAR 3) citing Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation - Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate Court MB 216 (7 APWH 216...

7. Tane-Stockler - Estate of Tanetinorau Opataia (2003) 122 Otorohanga MB 3 (122 OT 3) [pdf, 728 KB]

   ...decided that when the Hauturu East 8 Block was vested it was vested in the original owners in trust for their descendants and that, as a consequence, the applicants were not entitled to any beneficial interest by way of succession. The applicants appealed to the Maori Appellate Court. The Appellate Court found that the land was vested in the original owners and a trust established pursuant to section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953; that according to the provisions of Te Ture...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 107 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...consequences for her employment. 4 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [2015] NZERA Wellington 108. [13] Mr White, counsel for the CCDHB, relied on dicta of the Court of Appeal in Just Hotel Ltd v Jesudhass. 5 He submitted that s 148 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) protects written or oral communications, but not actions or inactions. He also said there would be no impediment to a non-part...

9. LCRO 152/2015 FR v CB and WT (15 May 2017) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...breach the requirements of the Act. FR’s submissions [34] At the review hearing FR handed up two papers entitled “Matters arising from the records of hearing [date] by Deputy LCRO O W J Vaughan” and “Additional matters relating to the appeal hearing by Deputy LCRO O W J Vaughan 19/4/17”. [35] As indicated in the title given by FR to the first paper, he raises various matters dealt with in the decision of [date]. The matters addressed in that decision provide the start...

10. Kerehi v Griggs - Ngapuketaurua 6C Section 1 (2017) 62 Tākitimu MB 210 (62 TKT 210) [pdf, 424 KB]

    ...[12] I am satisfied that the owners have had sufficient notice of the proposal and sufficient opportunity to consider it. 2 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) at [38]. 3 49 Takitimu MB 151 – 175 62 Tākitimu MB 213 Support? [13] Mr Bloor advised that as at 19 February 2016 he had responses from 18 of the 39 owners. 11 were in support of the proposal and 7 were against (...