Search Results

1. Shortland v Tipene - Motatau 2 Section 34A1 (2015) 114 Taitokerau MB 212 (114 TTK 212) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...or agent, of rent, purchase money, royalties, or other proceeds of the alienation of land, or of any compensation payable in respect of other revenue derived from the land, affected by any order to which an application under section 45 or an appeal under Part 2 relates. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80dc890d_19_25_se&p=1&id=DLM290914#DLM290914 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw...

2. Whanganui District Council – Kai Iwi 5G3A1, 5G3A2, 5G3B, 5G3C, 5H1 & 5H2 (2012) 295 Aotea MB 17 (295 AOT 17) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...order were amended to 2 11 Aotea MB 346-348 dated 21 December 1989 (11 AOT 346-348) 3 Naera v Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) (2011) Maori Appellate Court MB 316 (2011 APPEAL 316) http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-appellate-court-sittings/2011/Whakapoungakau%2024%20-Tikitere%20Trust-%202011%20APPEAL%20316.pdf http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/...

3. Taueki v The Trustees of Horowhenua 11 Māori Reservation (2011) 263 Aotea MB 210 (263 AOT 210) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...serious question to be tried in fact existed could not be brushed over lightly. For example see F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pasture Ltd 10 and Shivas v BTR Nylex Holding NZ Ltd. 11 [14] In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction: 12 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which th...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 214 The Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...

5. ABS Ltd v ZYL and ZYK [2013] NZDT 36 (15 March 2013) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...was a “mistake” for the purpose of the section. My understanding of s 28 is that it applies only where the mistake is an essential ingredient of the cause of action – for example, a payment under a mistake of fact or law. In the Court of Appeal case of Vanvi Ltd v Dawson [1980] 1 NZLR 513, Cooke J said that the same provision in the Limitation Act 1939 (UK) had been regarded as applying to actions in quasi-contract for the recovery of money paid by mistake of fact, and to clai...

6. AAJ and AAK v ZZR [2012] NZDT 2 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...any trade, business, industry, profession, occupation, activity of commerce, or undertaking relating to the supply or acquisition of goods or services or the to the disposition or acquisition of any interest in land”. [36] In the Court of Appeal case of Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor [2009] 2 NZLR 17 (CA), it was found that a person does not need to be trading in a personal capacity to be considered “in trade” and that an employee, agent or director of a company may be pers...

7. CAC 10043 v Brooker [2012] NZREADT 23 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...agent guilty of professional misconduct on different facts to those contained in the charge. To do so would seem to be contrary to natural justice. [26] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the existence of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court conferred by s 116 of the Act. DATED at AUCKLAND this 3 day of May 2012 ______________________________ ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Giddens [2014] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...decisions which had involved breach of undertakings, firstly to establish that the offence of misconduct had been committed rather than the negligence or unsatisfactory conduct alternatives. In particular we were referred to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society,1 [17] At paragraph 48 the Court said: where at paragraph 47 the importance of undertaking was reaffirmed by the Court. “There may be cases where a breac...

9. Auckland District Law Society v Parlane [2010] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...the profession in terms of its reputation and integrity. [25] Mr Parlane has a previous disciplinary record. Mr Parlane attempted to explain it away on the basis that the earlier disciplinary decisions were wrong, or that he only withdrew his appeals relating to findings against him in respect of 1 Section 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 6 those charges because he did not want to prolong matters. The matters occurred som...

10. Denee [2011] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 74 KB]

    ...occurred prior to the commencement of the Act. This was $2,000 and in addition it censured the practitioner and ordered the payment of costs of $3,230. The Standards Committee declined to publish the name of the practitioner. The complainant appealed the Standards Committee decision to the Legal Complaints Review Officer who, on 21 July 2010 gave a decision pursuant to sections 211(b) and 152(2) of the Act that the matter be referred to the Tribunal. Pursuant to section 212 char...