Search Results

1. Broughton - Horowhenua 11B36 Sec 2L4A Kaiwiu Marae (2020) 424 Aotea MB 20 (424 AOT 20) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...contract in which that person may be interested or concerned other than as a trustee of another trust. [19] Two important and leading authorities on the law concerning conflicts of interests in Māori land trusts are the decisions of the Court of Appeal Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick.8 Then there is the equally relevant judgment of the Supreme Court Fenwick v Naera.9 In Naera v Fenwick citing the earlier authority of Re Thompson’s Settlement, the Court concluded that any invo...

2. Horsfall v The Māori Reservation Trustees - Repongaere 4G (Part) (2003) 157 Gisborne MB 43 (157 Gis 43 [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...Regulations 1994 were considered. Two sections of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1994 (sections 2 and 17) noted above, have been regularly analysed and their importance affirmed in a number of Maori Appellate Court decisions including Re Mangaporou Trust­ An Appeal by Mr David Churfon 15 WGAP 120 (13 May 2003). In that decision the Maori Appellate Court approved the process of the Maori Land Court referring matters concerning trust administration to the owners and beneficiaries of the trust f...

3. Te Hiwi v Tahamata Incorporation (2005) 148 Aotea MB 265 (148 AOT 265) [pdf, 606 KB]

   ...common law and constitutional orthodoxy as to sovereignty, the Treaty and issues of custom. That orthodoxy has been confirmed by the Privy Council in Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] NZLR 590 and more recently by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 and Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643. Against this backdrop it is important in my view to underscore that the Maori Land Court is a court of record creat...

4. Trustees of Tauranga Taupo 1B2B2 - Kiko Road (2003) 271 Rotorua MB 155 (271 ROT 155) [pdf, 654 KB]

   ...acquired further interests or there was a difference in land values across the block, or both. The application was made by a nonseller and as a consequence of an arrangement with the Crown. Orders were made without objection. There was never any appeal and there is no suggestion of any litigation which attempted to upset the scheme. The Court had before it a plan which enabled it to describe the severances by way of boundary length and in reference to particular letters upon the pla...

5. Butcher v New Zealand Transport Agency (Third Statement of Claim) [2019] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...therefore ensure he or she sets out all the essential points that, if proved, would entitle him or her to the relief claimed. [15] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [84] the Court of Appeal set out the requirements of a statement of claim (High Court Rules, rr 5.17, 5.26 and 5.27). Those requirements apply equally in proceedings before the Tribunal. Specifically: [15.1] The pleading must be accurate, clear and intel...

6. Matchitt v Patchell - Torere 64 Incorporation (2019)212 Waiariki MB 155 (212 WAR 155) [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...Court decision dated 7 October 2015,1 and my recent decision dated 21 December 2018.2 1 Watson v Parker – The Proprietors of Torere 64 Incorporated [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 543 (2015 APPEAL 543). 2 Taku – Torere 64 Incorporation (2018) 204 Waiariki MB 115 (204 WAR 115). 212 Waiariki MB 157 [5] In its decision, the Māori Appellate Court noted at para [90] that “[t]he committee of management will need to arrang...

7. Oneroa v Kerehoma - Okahukura 8M 2C 2A 2A (2019) 401 Aotea MB 35 (401 AOT 35) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or [16] There is no express mention in s 222 of specific disqualifying factors, such as criminal convictions, for a nominated trustee. The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees. In that case the Court confirmed that, invariably, the views of the owners will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying consideration...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 142 Gisborne District Council v O'Connell [pdf, 664 KB]

   ...original situation; • Over the period 17 September 2014 until 17 February 2017, the Council had served parking infringement notices, resource management infringement notices and an abatement notice on Mr O'Connell. Mr O'Connell has not appealed the abatement notice nor contested any of the infringement notices, nor paid any of the infringement fees; • A feature highlighted in Mr Dobbie's affidavit was threatening and abusive conduct on Mr O'Connell's p...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 46 Davidson v Great Barrier Airlines Ltd [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...Milne [2012] NZEmpC 25 at [29]; 5 Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 6 and High Court Rules 2016, r 5.45(2). [15] There is a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the overall exercise. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd v Mel Network Ltd: 6 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an o...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 227 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 232 KB]

    ...“exceptional circumstances” in ss 114 and 115 of the Act. The Court preferred, as a meaning for those words, “unusual” (or as being the “exception to the rule”) and, in so doing, partially overturned the two formulations given by the Court of Appeal in Wilkins & Field v Fortune [1998] 2 ERNZ 70 (CA). “Unusual” was preferred by the Supreme Court because it accorded with common English usage and was easier to apply than any alternative. [13] Ms Wills...