Search Results

1. Cooper - Estate of Reihana Kopa (2016) 131 Taitokerau MB 285 (131 TTK 285) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...confirms that Māori customary adoptions made after the introduction of the Native Land Act 1909 have no legal effect beyond the recognition afforded by Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. 3.11 This position has been recently confirmed in two Court of Appeal decisions. In Whittaker v Māori Land Court of New Zealand [1997] NZFLR 707 the Court held that “successively there were periods when the parent/child relationship between (Meriana and Ngawini) was recognised by law (1892-1901)...

2. Karepa v Te Riini - The Kikorangi and Kareti Karepa Whānau Trust (2016) 138 Waiariki MB 134 (138 WAR 134) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...failed to carry out the duties of a trustee satisfactorily; or (b) because of lack of competence or prolonged absence, the trustee is or will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily. [18] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal noted the extent of the Court’s jurisdiction under s 238 of the Act: 6 [36] … Apart from the inherent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court and conferred on the Māori Land Court by s 237, the Māori Land Court has wide superv...

3. Leckie - Matauri 2K (2016) 137 Taitokerau MB 23 (137 TTK 23) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...Ngatai v Charmaine - Matakana 1A7A (2007) 21 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 147 (21 APWM 147); Bidois - Te Puna 154D3B2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate Court MB 102 (12 AP 102); Whaanga v Niania - Anewa Block [2011] Maori Appellate Court MB 340 (2011 APPEAL 340); and Rudolph v Reti - Otetao B3A2 [2011] Maori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143). 5 127 Taitokerau MB 127-132 (127 TTK 127-132). 137 Taitokerau MB 32 [14] In terms of s 329(2)(aa), the occupation orders will be...

4. Tumene - Succession to Ihimaera Wiringi [2021] Chief Judges MB 587(2021 CJ 587) [pdf, 508 KB]

   ...45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw or error identified, either through the production of evidence not available or not known of at the time the order was made or through submissions on the law. [11] Finally, the Court of Appeal has recently confirmed, the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:16 The first is the 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 Court or t...

5. National Standards Committee 1 v Young [2020] NZLCDT 30 (25 September 2020) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...Mr Z (contrary to our finding) does speak English, and that Mr Z was an immigration agent. These submissions are completely at odds with our liability decision. If Mr Young wished to challenge that decision, the proper course 6 was an appeal to the High Court. His inability to comprehend this important, fundamental structure, adds to our concern about his ability to recognise quite basic features of legal process, of which the disciplinary process is a straightforward ex...

6. [2021] NZREADT 04 - Complaints Assessment Committee 409 v Kemp & Scoble (22 January 2021) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...it to the 1 In a decision issued on 21 August 2020, the Committee found the defendants guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in relation to non-disclosure of the presence of “Dux Quest” plumbing at the property. That decision is subject to an appeal to the Tribunal. Agency’s Central Relationship Management (“CRM”) system, accessible by licensees at the Agency, including the defendants. [11] The defendants informed one of the trustee owners, Ms D, about the cancelled...

7. Amended affirmation of Mr Gary Taylor 2 December 2016 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...years and are genuinely trying to find equitable and durable solutions. 11. It seems to me that there are signs of a rush to gain approvals to transition to new land uses prior to Plan Change 13 being determined. 12. We are working through the appeal process in the normal way. But meanwhile I consider that the situation has reached a tipping point at which some extraordinary intervention is necessary, at least in the interim. It seems futile to be litigating on a plan change whi...

8. LCRO 64/2020 - QR - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (7 September 2020) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...Acts) is beyond the jurisdiction of this Office. Neither the Standards Committee or this Office can undertake to do this. [59] The decision as to what constitutes the best forum in which to examine matters was commented on by the Court of Appeal in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society where the Court held that there was no threshold test to meet before matters could be referred to the Tribunal.16 The Court also held:17 … a decision [to lay charges] does not determine the outcome...

9. LCRO 68/2019 NI v RC and OD (28 February 2020) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...considered however. … 8 At [59]. 9 Which was received the day before the Standards Committee meeting. 6 [27] In making this comment, the Committee is echoing comments made by the Court of Appeal in R v Nakhla (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 453 where the Court said: … As to the complaints in the motion that the Court did not deal with certain submissions and attributed to counsel a submission he did not make it may be observed that a bel...

10. [2020] NZREADT 21 - Hanford (12 May 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

    ...decisions as providing some assistance in assessing the seriousness of Mr Hanford’s conduct, and the appropriate penalty. [20] In its substantive decision in Miller v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 20003),5 the Tribunal considered an appeal brought by Mr Miller against the decision of a Complaints Assessment Committee to take no further action on his complaint against a fellow licensee (Mr Robinson). A purchaser had been introduced to a property by Mr Robinson while he w...