Search Results

1. Paamu - Succession to Tupito Maruera [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1321 (2025 CJ 1321) [pdf, 411 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [11] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court o...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 50 Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust v Nathan [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...argument that the Court’s judgment awarding the Plaintiff damages in the amount of $24,639.20 should be offset by outstanding wages and holiday pay owed to the Defendant, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defendant did not file any cross-appeal with respect to her claims for wages and holiday pay, and therefore, any amounts owed to the Defendant in this regard have no bearing on the Court’s judgment here. 3. The Plaintiff does not dispute that the Defendant has a...

3. Māori Trustee v Forde - Section 186 Block V Longwood Survey District (2014) 27 Te Waipounamu MB 65 (27 TWP 65) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...[5] The Māori Trustee’s memorandum is dated 8 September 2014, and there is an undated response from the respondents received by email on 6 October 2014. [6] The Māori Trustee submits that the cause of delay was because they waited until the appeal period expired, and then the additional parties applied for a variation to the final orders which was granted on 20 September 2013 but not received by them until 25 November 2013. Once the amended order was received they continued to tak...

4. CAC20002 v Lloyd [2013] NZREADT 40 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...profession needs to understand that any form of forgery by an agent (even when not acting as an agent) has serious consequences. Accordingly, the Tribunal fine Mr Lloyd the sum of $700. [12] The Tribunal draw the parties’ attention the right of appeal to the High Court contained in s.116 Real Estate Agents Act. DATED at AUCKLAND this 16th day of May 2013 _____________________________ Ms K Davenport Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v AC [2012] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...affairs of the person charged or any other person. [6] In a number of decisions, the Tribunal has indicated the presumption of openness of disciplinary processes will not be lightly displaced. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.1 Decision [7] The Tribunal considers in this matter having regard to the presumption of openness and the balancing of the public interests and private interests of the

6. Stanley & Anor as trustees of the Lucy Stanley Family Trust v North Shore City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 53 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Stanley & Anor as trustees of the Lucy Stanley Family Trust v North Shore City Council Citation: TRI 2010-100-000026/DBH 05433 Adjudicator: PA McConnell Date of Decision: 31 March 2011 Background As trustees of the Lucy Stanley Family Trust, the claimants brought a claim regarding their home which was built by Ms Stanley (one of the trustees) and a Mr Jones in 1998. A number of parties were removed prior to the hearing. The remaining parties were: F

7. 28 June 2017 Bennett v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS Thames-Coromandel PDP - Network Utilities ENV-2017-341-000003 P W Bennett v Thames-Coromandel District Council Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 Court Reference: ENV-2016-AKL-000139 1. i. Topic:

8. Waho - Rangiwaea 4F14B1A (2002) 113 Aotea MB 223 (113 AOT 223) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...or class of person heard or represented in any proceedings before the Court. The approach the Court should take to applications under section 98/93 has been discussed in a number of Maori Appellate Court decisions including In Re Hiwarau C - An Appeal by Tuiranga Mokomoko & Ors (2001) 10 APRO 32. In that case his Honour Chief Judge Williams was the presiding officer. The Maori Appellate Court confirmed the Special Legal Aid fund is not a general legal aid fund. That Court also made...

9. [2020] NZREADT 25 - Hilliam - Ruling (16 June 2020) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...date of the re-issue of this decision. The payment is to be made to Ms Herbst and Mr Holmes in equal shares of $5,000. [12] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson __________________ Mr G Denley Member...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 10 Anderson v Righteous Law Ltd [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...at the appropriate time. Mr Snedden, in his affidavit, deposed that counsel’s fees can no longer be met. It appears that Ms Anderson, having had legal aid withdrawn, unsuccessfully reviewed the decision and may now be intending to file an appeal (the timeframe for doing so has not yet expired). [6] I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the broader circumstances of this case to grant leave to withdraw. The proceeding is at an early stage – a preliminary jurisdictiona...