Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Allan [2019] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...In May 2018 Mr Allan represented C B (Mr B) in a jury trial where he was convicted of 33 charges for sexual offending against two complainants. 61 L C was instructed to represent Mr B at sentencing and to conduct a review of the case for possible appeal grounds. 62 In early July 2018 Mr C requested the file from Mr Allan via telephone message. This was followed by a formal written request by letter dated 11 July 2018 specifying the documents required (the requested documents). 63...

2. Kidd v Maori Owners - Whenuanui No 2B [2021] Chief Judges MB 1409 (2021 CJ 1409) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:13 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 court...

3. Wharekawa - Succession to Rewi Maniapoto (Manga) [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1170 (2021 CJ 1170) [pdf, 402 KB]

   ...substantial evidence proving that Rawinia Ashwell should have been included in that order. On the evidence submitted, the applicant failed to establish 7 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 8 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 9 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1183 the Court made an error.10 After noting the relevant legislation (under which the orders were made) gave the Court a wide discretion, the C...

4. Koha v Tatana - Succession to Winika Hāwe [2022] Chief Judge's MB 266 (2022 CJ 266) [pdf, 359 KB]

   ...reason, s 45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw 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. [25] Finally, as the Court of Appeal has confirmed, the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:6 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 court or the Regi...

5. Human-Rights-Commission-submissions-on-scope-of-inquiry.pdf [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...international human rights documents, such as United Nations treaty body general comments, which provide interpretive guidance on human rights treaty provisions, and UN Special Rapporteur reports and findings. The Commission notes that the Court of Appeal has found that general comments are “pertinent” to the interpretative process.26 When considering the application of the human rights framework, the courts have also referred in their judgments to the observations made by Uni...

6. Puna v Puna - Rotopounamu 1B1A [2022] Chief Judges MB 28 (2022 CJ 28) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.5 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [33] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:6 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 cour...

7. LCRO 80/2022 NL v EB (23 July 2024) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...scepticism of the reasons promoted by Ms NL in support of her application. Nature and scope of review [59] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:20 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 involv...

8. LCRO 130/2022 FN v EO (31 October 2023) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...Mr FN and counsel, Mr JL. Ms EO did not exercise the opportunity to attend. Nature and scope of review [53] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 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 invol...

9. Otene – Tauhara Māori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168 (58 TPO 168) [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...pursuant to .439 (7) appoints the following as additional to the present surviving trustees: Leslie Rehua ~all Solomon Rutene Kuti William Tahau Jack Isaacs Barney Northcroft Adam iVarbrick. In doing so, and in the event of there being an appeal. I record that I would not have appointed additional trustees had the decision of this Court been to make the orders sought, and then for the reason that as some of the abovenamed were "objectors," their appointment may not ha...

10. [2025] NZLVT 028 – Edwards v Minister for Land Information (17 June 2025) [pdf, 406 KB]

    ...Minute is dated 14 April 2022 and by this stage it is evident that the Tribunal was becoming concerned at the delays in getting this matter to hearing. The Tribunal noted that it had heard the Middle Hill matter in March 2022 and there was an appeal in relation to Plan Change 25 which was heard by the Environment Court, with a decision still to issue. 17 The parties jointly sought to vacate the hearing date for July 2022, await the decision on Middle Hill and provide a repor...