Search Results

1. LCRO 158/2020 SA v KC (27 May 2022) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...audio-visual means on 12 May 2022. In attendance were S, Mr KC and Mr RB.9 Nature and scope of review [22] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 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 invo...

2. Hogarth - Taumarunui Papakainga Section 11A (2021) 435 Aotea MB 141 (435 AOT 141) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...Act. [20] Every application for confirmation of an alienation requires a special valuation unless the Court orders otherwise as per s 158. 3 Matthews v Matthews – Estate of Graham Ngahina Matthews (2015) Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2015 APPEAL 512) at [55] as cited in Henderson - Waiohiki 1D2B10D (2016) 55 Takitimu MB 83 (55 TKT 83) at [25]. 4 Taueki – Horowhenua X1B41 North A34 and 3B1 (2008) 16 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 30 (16 WGAP 30) at [75]. 435 Aotea MB 146...

3. Smith - Pekapeka 2A1D2B (2021) 91 Tākitimu MB 145 (91 TKT 145) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...are also an insufficient ground for opposition as is concerns over how subsequent owners of land may have conducted themselves in terms of 6 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block VII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 Appeal 259) 7 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 (HC) 91 Tākitimu MB 152 Mr Nikora. Ms Cracknell should therefore provide a submission as to why she opposes the partition setting out clearly her grounds. To avoid doub...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 85 Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd v Total Property Services (Canterbury) Ltd [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...than brief, the merits may be considered. However, a decision declining an extension of time based on the claim lacking merit should only be made where the case is clearly hopeless.19 [21] Where there has been a slip, so that the date to file an appeal has been inadvertently, missed and steps are taken to rectify that mistake quickly, the delay is likely to be inconsequential. Conversely, the longer the delay the more the applicant is seeking an indulgence and the stronger the cas...

5. [2023] NZREADT 10 – Complaints Assessment Committee 2103 v Sharma (8 May 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...to the Registrar within one month a fine of $15,000. 3. Ordered to pay to the Registrar within one month costs of $17,477.75. [38] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [39] Having regard to the interests of the public, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision.13 ___________________ D J Plunkett Chair ___________________ G J Denley...

6. Rzoska v Randell - Succession to Te Maehe [2023] Chief Judge's MB155 (2023 CJ 155) [pdf, 397 KB]

   ...complained of. [12] In the current case, having considered the Case Manager’s Report and evidence provided by the parties, I am satisfied that an error in fact or law has been made due to a mistake [1] [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at 180. [2] [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) at 221. 2023 Chief Judge’s MB 163 or omission in the presentation of facts of the case to the Court, because there are two different people affected whose iden...

7. COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill [pdf, 408 KB]

   ...they fail to confirm to the Registrar’s satisfaction that they have met COVID-19 jury requirements. The Registrar may refer the exercise of powers of deferral or excuse to a Judge and any person dissatisfied with a Registrar’s decision may appeal against that decision to a Judge. A Judge may also excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror in the court in which the Judge sits if the Judge is not satisfied that the person meets the COVID-19 jury requirements. 30. A Registrar...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 36 Kang v Saena Company Ltd [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...incorporated in July 2021. [41] The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that there is a prospect that the assets will be removed, dissipated or diminished in value. The test is not unduly exacting. In Murren v Schaeffer the Court of Appeal considered this aspect of the test and commented:12 The second stage requires the Court to be satisfied there is a danger that judgment will not be satisfied because assets may be removed or dealt with in a way that frust...

9. Twigley v New Zealand Law Society [2023] NZLCDT 28 (18 July 2023) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...deny Mr Twigley the opportunity of practising the profession for which he is qualified. The exercise of looking forward, while having regard to the applicant’s past conduct is well expressed in the leading case of Lundon,8 in which the Court of Appeal observed that if a restoration applicant: …relies on a subsequent career of honesty he must show long- continued honesty in circumstances of temptation and opportunity comparable with those which surround the practice of the law.9...

10. Skerrett - Taumanu A (2023) 299 Waiariki MB 93 (299 WAR 93) [pdf, 285 KB]

    ...v Māori Appellate Court, HC Wellington CP428/98, 14 September 2000 at [52], cited in Reid v Trustees of Kaiwaitau 1 Trust (2006) 34 Gisborne Appellate 168 (34 APGS 168). 14 Rudolph v Reti - Otetao B3A2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143) at [37]. 299 Waiariki MB 101 [37] In Leckie — Matauri 2K the Court noted:15 The question of what amounts to a ‘sufficient degree of support’ for an application for an occupation order (and other applications under the...