Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 55 Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague & Ors [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...exceptions) Electrical etc IUOW v Remtron Lighting Ltd (in rec) [1990] 1 NZILR 583; (1990) 3 NZERLC 98,141, this Court followed the judgment in Marr v Arabco Traders Ltd (No 8) unreported, Tompkins J, 12 March 1987, HC Auckland A1195/77 affirmed on appeal in Elders Pastoral Ltd v Marr (1987) 2 PRNZ 383 (CA). Leave to amend proceedings at a late stage of them is a discretionary decision based on whether such an amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties...

2. [2009] NZEmpC AC 34A/09 NZ Dairy Workers Union v Open Country Cheese Company Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...[22] The lockout notice relates not to bargaining for a collective agreement which will bind each of the employees concerned, but its nature is to compel the members of the Union to enter into individual employment agreements. [23] The Court of Appeal considered the provisions of s83 in Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc2. The Court found at para 39: For there to be a lawful lockout the employee’s demand under s82(1)(b) must be lin...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 182 Juahm Industries Co Ltd v Isnanto [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...a determination, or part of a determination, about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure. [13] These provisions have been considered on several occasions. In Employment Relations Authority v Rawlings the Court of Appeal stated: 5 We are satisfied that s 179(5) and 184(1A) are intended to prevent challenge or review processes disrupting unfinished Authority investigations. But once the investigation is over and a determination has been made, there i...

4. Tukapua - Horowhenua 11B 36 2L 4A Block (Kawiu Marae) (2013) 307 Aotea MB 117 (307 AOT 117) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...this Court have regularly canvassed the issues of appointments and the role of trustees to Māori reservations. Leading decisions are Perenara v Pryor – Matatā 930,3 and Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) – Rongopai Marae,4 [30] The Court of Appeal decision in Clarke v Karaitiana and I adopt the reasoning set out in those decisions. 5 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of...

5. Wairua - Maungaroa No.1 Section 2B Block (2014) 103 Waiariki MB 133 (103 WAR 133) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...made, or to which that person is entitled to succeed, justifies the occupation order.] [11] In Sione - Te Hapua 247 the Māori Appellate Court held that s 328 facilitates land utilisation by provision of a house site. That Court was considering an appeal from a refusal to grant an occupation order on the grounds that the applicant had insufficient shares to support the area she sought as the site for her house. That is not an issue in this case, but I note the broad principles that...

6. Bigham v Budd - Waiokura Marae and Reserves Trust (2014) 331 Aotea MB 151 (331 AOT 151) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...advisory, or a custodian trustee. (5) For every trust constituted under this Part of this Act the Court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [15] The Court of Appeal considered the application of s222 in its important decision Clarke v Karaitiana. In that case a dispute arose as to the process of an election and the issues that needed to be taken into account when applying s222 of the Act: 8...

7. Smith v The Proprietors of Mangaroa and other blocks (2015) 113 Waiariki MB 1 (113 WAR 1) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...Trust. 8 In that case the Māori Appellate Court agreed that it was useful for the Court to make a comparison with the High Court scale of costs in cases which are clearly analogous with High Court litigation. [29] I also refer to the Court of Appeal decision of Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd. 9 At paragraph [41] of that decision Chambers J explained why a percentage of actual approach should not be sanctioned. I accept that the context of litigation in the Māori Land Court...

8. Trustees of Aata Paora Keretene Ahu Whenua Trust v Cherrington - Motatau 3B2B3 (2016) 122 Taitokerau MB 218 (122 TTK 218) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...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 of this Act or an appeal under Part 2 of this Act 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 Maori Trustee. (3) Any injunction made by...

9. 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...

10. 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...