Search Results

1. Tawa v Ataria - Tuaropaki E (2021) 267 Waiariki MB 184 (267 WAR 184) [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...since 2008 the Trust has had at least two periodic reviews, in 2016 and 2020, and there has been ample opportunity to address the issue. The applicant also gave evidence 3 Tito - Mangakahia 2B2 - No 2A1A [2011] Maori Appellate Court MB 86 (2011 APPEAL 86). 4 Trusts Act 2019, ss 23-27. 5 Pukeroa Oruawhata Trustees v Mitchell – Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust (2006) 11 Waiariki Appeal MB 66 (11 AP 66). 267 Waiariki MB 192 that she made specific oral requests to the previous cha...

2. Security Information in Proceedings Bill [PDF, 1.1 MB]

   ...a certificate provided jointly by the Attorney-General and Minister of Foreign Affairs (cl 39). 7. There is no guidance in the Bill as to which track is to be used when, so it gives a broad discretion to the Crown to choose the track. There is no appeal procedure for a certificate but judicial review of a certificate would be possible. 8. If the Crown chooses the non-certificate track the Court determines whether a security information order would be necessary (e.g. it may be unnecessar...

3. Bloor v Karaitiana - Runanga 2E (2021) 259 Waiariki MB 286 (259 WAR 286) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...opposition to the appointments. I have reviewed the consents of John Hirini Rameka and Romani Mere Tahau. Although Mr Bloor has provided 9 Smith v Smith - Nuki o Te Hapū Tahawai ki Rataroa Whānau Trust [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 110 (2019 APPEAL 110) at [20]. 10 Boase - Wharengaere No 3 (2019) 205 Taitokerau MB 227 (205 TTK 227). 11 Walker – Section 1A Parish of Katikati (1995) 18 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 260 (18 APWM 260). 12 Walker - Section 1A Parish of Kat...

4. JM v Minister for NZSIS (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2022] NZHRRT 32 [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...suppression of his name, the names of his (as yet unspecified) witnesses and any details identifying them. [9] JM also said that, in the event the Tribunal refused his application for permanent orders, he sought interim orders, pending his pursuing an appeal to the Senior Courts for permanent orders or for judicial review. Accordingly, this decision deals first with JM’s application for permanent non-publication orders. 3 SUBMISSIONS ON NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS JM’s submi...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 185 McPherson v Oji Fibre Solutions (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...look at the merits of the legal argument for the purposes of assessing justification, but he argued that the decision-maker would not necessarily have to resolve that debate. 15 Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 1 ERNZ 354 (EmpC). On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the statement of law expressed by Judge Travis: see Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917 at 923. 16 At 361. [47] Mr Mitchell has advised the Court that Mr McPherson’s ca...

6. Hita v Hita - Kaihu 1A2E3B2 [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1233 (2021 CJ 1233) [pdf, 543 KB]

   ...issue.3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. 3 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1244 [16] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:4 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in f...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 96 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...[21] When considering a strike-out application, pleaded facts, whether or not admitted, are assumed to be true.4 [22] The criteria for striking out for no reasonably arguable cause of action under r 15.1(1)(a) was summarised by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Prince:5 ... It is well settled that before the Court may strike out proceedings the causes of action must be so clearly untenable that they cannot possibly succeed ... the jurisdiction is one to be exercised spari...

8. Karaitiana-Bryant v Karaitiana - Waipahihi 4H [2024] Chief Judge's MB 278 (2024 CJ 278) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.4 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [19] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the cou...

9. Lawyer-for-Subject-Person.-Selection-Appointment-and-Other-Matters.pdf [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...on the rate of remuneration and/or any additional cost, the file should be referred to a judge for direction. 6.9 The lawyer’s appointment will continue: (a) for 28 days from a final order pending any party to the proceedings taking steps to appeal; and (b) if directed to continue by the court for a specific purpose. 6.10 The role of the lawyer is contained in section 65 of the PPPR Act and referred to in detail in the FLS Best Practice Guidelines. 7 REPORT TO THE COURT...

10. Lawyer-for-Child-practice-note-updated-July-2024.pdf [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...the rate of remuneration and/or any additional cost, the file should be referred to the judge for direction. 6.7 When a final order has been made, the lawyer's appointment will continue: (a) for 28 days in order to advise on the merits of an appeal (section 9B(d) of the FCA); and [2020] NZFC 3346 4 (b) in COCA cases to comply with section 55(4). 6.8 The role of the lawyer is referred to in detail in the FLS Best Practice Guidelines. 7 ORANGA TAMARIKI ACT 1989: RE...