Search Results

1. ACG Ltd v ZXX Ltd [2011] NZDT 157 (9 May 2011) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...to be a breach of the Act irrespective of what knowledge ZXX Ltd may or may not have had at the time it made the representation. [8] There appears to have been considerable discussion at the first hearings of this claim and the subsequent appeal in relation to the applicability of the shipping labels and the two per cent allowance for impurities noted on them. The applicability of the labels was also discussed at today’s hearings and I had the benefit of hearing from Mr JN, a...

2. Merito - The Moutoki, Tokata and Rurima Islands (2011) 34 Waiariki MB 176 (34 WAR 176) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...opportunity to discuss this application with the Registrar and Court staff. The Deputy Registrar responsible for the project confirmed that the owners and their representatives are entitled to notice, to be heard and to pursue the remedies of rehearing, appeal and review. [8] The current application concerns a review of trust that began in 2003. Since then I have issued two reserved judgments on 30 April 2004 and 23 December 2005 dealing with, inter alia, the appointment of new an...

3. Te Ruatahi 2B Trust – Te Ruatahi 2C1 (2013) 58 Taitokerau MB 239 (58 TTK 239) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...without the consent of any person being required, be laid out – (a) Over any other Māori land...” On the face of it this provision appears to say exactly what it means, that consent of the owners is not required. However in the Court of Appeal judgment in Coles and Ors v Miller and Ors at paragraph 43 the Court says: “We can accept that it would have been a breach of natural justice if the Court had made a roadway order without either obtaining the consent of someone who...

4. CAC 10044 v He [2011] NZREADT 9 [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...to take effect one month from the date of issue of this decision. 3 HC Auckland, CIV 2007-404-1818, 13 August 2007 6 [25] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal records the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 27 th day of May 2011 ______________________________ Judge Michael Hobbs Chairman ______________________________ Mr...

5. Deputy Registrar – Lot 1 DP 2811 (2013) 18 Te Waipounamu MB 287 (18 TWP 287) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...implies Henry 4 Laws of New Zealand Land Law: The Place of Land Law in New Zealand (online ed) at [7]. 5 Maori Land Court - Lot 300, Parish of Waioeka (2010) 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 12 (2010 APPEAL 12) at [52]. 6 Faulkner v Tauranga District Council [1996] 1 NZLR 357. 7 Whaanga – Mahia Township Sections 90 and 91 (2000) 34 Tairāwhiti Appellate Court MB 12 – 31 (34 APGS 12-31). 8 Whaanga v District Land Registrar HC Napier CP...

6. CAC20005 v Cui [2015] NZREADT 23 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...proceedings. The fine and costs are to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within 20 working days from the date of this decision. [26] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member ______________________________ M...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 213 Dr X v a District Health Board [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...the Court lacked jurisdiction, and adjournments and delays associated with changes of counsel. [12] It was reasonable, given the nature of the interests involved, for the applicant to put a concerted effort into the application. As the Court of Appeal observed in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd, the proposition that costs must not be disproportionate to the monetary value of the successful party’s judgment is too absolute: 3 …both in itself and certainly in a case where justified...

8. ENVC Matiatia party corresp costs Direction Matiatia Ltd 201601 [pdf, 316 KB]

   ...4 ought to have been on notice that this degree of engagement (and its associated costs) would necessarily follow from proceeding by way of direct referral (in contrast to a ‘two-step’ hearing process): any decision was final save for an appeal on a point of law. (c) Contrary to what might be expected with a direct referred application, WML approached its application in an iterative and ill- conceived fashion: (i) It first applied to undertake a reclamation for car parking...

9. ED v VV LCRO 229 / 2010 (15 June 2011) - Costs Decision [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...that type of behaviour were summarised by Sheppard J in Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248, which was adopted by Goddard J in Hedley v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Limited (2002) 16 PRNZ 694 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] 3 NZLR 400. The summary provided by Sheppard J is as follows:- 1. The making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud; 2. Partic...

10. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (15 August 2013) [pdf, 67 KB]

    ...reached the necessary threshold of the New Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal. The outcome sought was that the decision of the Committee be quashed, a determination made as to the facts and law, or deferring the matter until such time as the appeal was heard. These grounds were enlarged in an attached letter and in further correspondence, which altogether contained extensive submissions, particularly concerning the background to the allegations of bias. [12] The main grou...