Search Results

1. O'Leary - Waitahanui No.6 Block (2011) 262 Aotea MB 95 (262 AOT 95) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...there being no opposition to the change of status application, the Māori Land Court may, in the exercise of its powers and 262 Aotea MB 97 responsibilities, make its own assessment whether to change the status of land, as the Court of Appeal stated in Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc. 1 . Relevant facts [8] The Applicant has been an owner in the Waitahanui No.6 block since 1984. He has farmed the block as part of his farm since 1984. His evidence was that his shares have...

2. AFF v ZUP [2013] NZDT 350 (19 November 2013) [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...Whilst it is technically possible under s 7 of the CMA to order a refund if this is “just”, this section should not be used except in exceptional circumstances to override the general principle in the CRA, reinforced in the High Court and Court of Appeal, that buyers of goods in private sales can apply only for damages. A buyer making a private purchase must accept that there remains a risk of loss that cannot be recovered, putting a high value on their pre-purchase homework....

3. Koopu v Trustees of Maraenui A2 Ahu Whenua Trust – Maraenui A2 (2013) 69 Waiariki MB 115 (69 WAR 115) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...cases for relief against forfeiture, the Courts in granting such relief are granting an indulgence and, therefore, rent and costs must usually be paid. But elements of fairness should also be considered as noted in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Roses Are Red Ltd v Board of Administration of the Methodist Church of New Zealand (2009).7 Thus Mr Peterson further contended that it is not always appropriate that costs be awarded to the respondent. He submitted that as the respon...

4. CAC 2006 v Azimi - Interim Suspension [2012] NZREADT 43 [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...of its decision and (a) include in the notice the grounds for the decision, the date on which the suspension takes effect, and the period or duration of the suspension; and 4 (b) specify in the notice the right of the licensee to appeal to the High Court under section 116. Discussion [7] The pre-requisite to ordering interim suspension is that the licensee has been charged under s.91 (refer s.115(1)(a)). The ground for interim suspension is set out in s.115(1)(b...

5. CAC 10043 v Brooker - Penalty Decision [2012] NZREADT 31 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...that a fine of $500 would be the appropriate penalty for Ms Brooker. We order, therefore, that she pay the sum of $500 by way of a fine. [16] We draw the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act which provides for the right of appeal to the High Court. 5 DATED at AUCKLAND this 11th day of June 2012 ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member

6. CAC 10037 v Walker [2011] NZREADT 4 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...the commencement of the 2008 Act on 17 November 2009 s 172 of the 2008 Act applies and we cannot make such an order, see CAC v Dodd (above) at para 65. [29] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 21 st day of April 2011 ______________________________ Judge Michael Hobbs Chairman ______________________________ J Robson Me...

7. Auckland Standards Committee v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...Having referred the Tribunal to a number of the criminal cases underlying the law as to name suppression, Ms Davenport QC takes the Tribunal to three cases where name suppression has been refused by the Tribunal (and in the case of Hart1 upheld on appeal). In the other two cases namely Hirschfeld2 and Hill3 and also in a further case not referred to by counsel, Hall4 [9] The Hart matter was somewhat different but what was declined in that case was the submission that a practitioner...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Deobhakta [2014] NZLCDT 50 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...corruption in NZLS”. [6] Mr Clancy for the Standards Committee opposed the request for adjournment. He submitted that the practitioner had been aware of the Tribunal’s decision since December 2013 and thus had time to exercise his right to appeal the decision and had not done so. He said that there was no prejudice to the practitioner in declining the request, because the issue of possible strike-off had been extant since May 2014 at a time when Mr Mabey,QC was representing...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Clews [2014] NZLCDT 49 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...approval that Mr Clews has subsequently apologised in writing to this practitioner. [10] In terms of disciplinary history we note there was one finding of unsatisfactory conduct which related to the manner in which Mr Clews conducted the trial, the appeal from which led (indirectly) to these two charges. Thus, this is a somewhat unusual situation in that there is a nexus between these charges and the only other adverse finding against the practitioner. We consider that does reduce...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Smith Charges [2015] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...an ex parte application, charged the beneficial interests of the husband in various entities, which were then set out in Schedule 2 of the order. [8] The wife applied for the order to be made final and the husband applied for a stay, having appealed the original award. Neither were successful when these applications were considered by Her Honour, Justice Ellis on 12 March 2013. In the course of that judgment Her Honour recorded the husband’s evidence that he held any shares...