Search Results

1. [2021] NZIACDT 20 – HT v Shaikh (27 August 2021) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...(nor is one required). He was advised he was unlawfully in New Zealand and would be liable for deportation if he did not leave. [21] Mr Shaikh advised the complainant of the decision on the same day. He set out two options: 1. File an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal; or 2. Travel overseas and file a new application. COMPLAINT [22] On 9 November 2020, the complainant made a complaint against Mr Shaikh to the Authority. He alleged negligence and dish...

2. LCRO 145/2021 AZ v BY (28 October 2022) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...Committee to take no further action on Mr AZ’s complaints should be confirmed. Nature and scope of review [29] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It...

3. [2025] NZREADT 06 - UX v REAA (19 February 2025) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...finance. The agency did not respond to the request to put in a more considered offer. This was despite the delay in the presentation of the offers to the vendors. Procedure [34] On 18 September 2024, the Tribunal issued Minute 1 directing the appeal be heard on the papers and setting a timetable. [35] In accordance with the timetable, the Registrar filed two bundles of documents, one unredacted and one redacted. Only the redacted bundle was served on the 11 complainan...

4. Hikatangata v Phillips - Succession to Te Rata Phillips [2025] Chief Judge's MB 408 (2025 CJ 408) [pdf, 350 KB]

   ...at [15]. 2025 Chief Judge's MB 422 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. [29] 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 or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court...

5. Herewini - Succession to Ra Herewini [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1103 (2024 CJ 1103) [pdf, 506 KB]

   ...IX,11 10 Ashwell – Succession to Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) at [15]. 11 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2024 Chief Judge's MB 1113 the Chief Judge must exercise [their] jurisdiction by applying the civil standard of proof of the balance of probabilities having regard to that standard’s inherent flexibility that...

6. Walters v Walters - Te Kohanga Lots 1 & 3 - 27 [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1357 (2024 CJ 1357) [pdf, 320 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. [14] 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 or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the...

7. Tairua - Succession to Tihema Takena Wihongi [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1669 (2024 CJ 1669) [pdf, 282 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. [20] 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...

8. Notification of Applications that have not been finally determined (over 6 months old) - 31 May 2021 [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   1 Notification of applications that have not been finally determined (over 6 months old) 31 May 2021 TAKE NOTICE THAT the following schedule of applications are hereby notified pursuant to rule 5.11(2)(b) of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 being applications which are 6 months or older as at 31 May 2021, and which are currently held by the Registrar in the District set out, or, in the case of applications to the Chief Judge of Māori Land Court or those to the Māori Appell

9. [2011] NZEmpC 140 Gwilt v Briggs Stratton NZ Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   GWILT V BRIGGS & STRATTON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 140 [27 October 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 140 ARC 7/09 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN GEOFFREY SCHOLEFIELD GWILT Plaintiff AND BRIGGS & STRATTON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 26-29 July and 10 August 2010 (5 days) (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Garry Pollak, cou

10. Aldridge & Ors as Trustees of the SL & KM Aldridge Family Trust v Boe [2010] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 304 KB]

    ...they lack an air of reality in what was going on. Mr Young needed walls. Mr Young arranged for people to do it. To now say that makes him a contractor or a developer is in my judgment to miss the import of the distinction which the Court of Appeal was drawing in Mt Albert Council.” [92] In the recent High Court decision of Findlay Family Trust21 Ellis J cited the above passage in finding that Mr Findlay’s role was on all fours with that of the owner in Mowlem v Young and...