Search Results

1. TC & TD v NV LCRO 255 / 2011 (14 January 2013) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...maximum amount that the Tribunal could order. It also ordered that the claim by the company for $1,537.50 for the unpaid ground rental be off set against that payment, thereby effectively upholding the counterclaim by CBW. [20] TC lodged an appeal against the decision of the Disputes Tribunal in the District Court in September 2010 which was beyond the statutory period for appeal. He then compiled his complaint against NV and forwarded this to the firm with a request that the fi...

2. Keven Investments Limited v Arthur [2011] NZWHT Auckland 45 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...Young, a professional man building a house who got appropriate workman to do the physical jobs was not a contractor of developer. To make him such would in the Robertson J’s opinion, “miss the import of the distinction which the Court of Appeal was drawing in Mt Albert Borough Council”.6 This conclusion was reached even though Mr Young had some experience as a developer. [18] Mr and Mrs Montgomery’s motivation in building this dwelling was to build a home in which...

3. LCRO 126-2017 PC v The Committee [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...scope of review [22] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...

4. AB v DE & Ors LCRO 75/2014 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...decisions of this Office have made it clear that it is “improper to use the complaints process as a means to undermine or attack a decision of another Court or Tribunal”.9 [72] The proper route for challenge of a decision of another Tribunal is appeal. This is further recognised in s 138(1)(f) of the Act which states that a Standards Committee may resolve to take no further action where there is an adequate right of appeal that the complainant could exercise. Where proceedings are b...

5. LCRO 174/2017 DN v CI [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...scope of review [28] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:5 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

6. LCRO 49/2016 QG v WW (8 May 2018) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...scope of review [47] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

7. Kirkham v Huata - Lot 2 Deposited Plan 1996 formerly known as Mangaroa 26N2 block (2016) 54 Takitimu MB 104 (54 TKT 104) [pdf, 363 KB]

   ...4 Mikaere-Toto v Te Reti B and C Residue Trust - Te Reti B and Te Reti C Block [2014] Maori Appellate Court MB 249 (2014 APPEAL 249); Adlam v Savage - Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec 2B No 2B No 2A Parish of Matata [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 59 (2015 APPEAL 59) 5 See Haira v Haira – Kapenga A7(2016) 149 Waiariki MB 259 (149 WAR 259) 6

8. MacDonald v Wynyard - Manawakore C1 and Manawakore D (2016) 131 Taitokerau MB 149 (131 TTK 149) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...for in the Act, the Trustee Act 1956 and the Reservation Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance. [21] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held: 13 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of th...

9. Skinner v Harawira - Estate of Maryanne Harawira [2016] Chief Judge's MB 207 (2016 CJ 207) [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...grounds included the historical importance of the land to the alienating owners or 6 Tau v Nga Whanau o Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 7 See Matthews v Matthews – Estate of Graham Ngahina Matthews [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2015 APPEAL 512) for a full discussion on the repeal of these provisions. 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 219 any...

10. Bennett - Estate of Ronald Clifford Bennett (2017) 156 Waiariki MB 250 (156 WAR 250) [pdf, 241 KB]

    ...order in favour of a non-owner. However, an order vesting interests in the land or a right to possession of the land (or part of it) in favour of a non-owner will likely offend the kaupapa and provisions of the Act. Although in Grace the Court of Appeal did not completely rule out that possibility. Where the Court concludes that a non-owner is entitled to equitable relief, the Court will in the first place look to awarding monetary compensation. If monetary compensation is inappropr...