Search Results

1. Foster v Wood - Taupo No.23 B Section 1 (2015) 108 Taitokerau MB 43 (108 TTK 43) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...to future generations. If a person can Whakapapa to an original owner or occupier of the land that person has a right to the land. [33] The principles in Nuhaka have subsequently been adopted in a number of decisions including by the Court of Appeal in Kameta v Nicholas. 5 [34] These principles apply in the present case. Ms Wood can whakapapa back to an original owner in the land. It matters not that the land was subsequently partitioned, as the relevant association is with the...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 64 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board No 5 Interlocutory [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...counsel for the plaintiff argues that the defendant could not have been said to have had, on 18 December 2009 or 12 January 2010, reasonable grounds for contemplating becoming a party to a proceeding. Counsel invokes the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance of New Zealand Ltd v Stuart where it was said that: 6 …privilege can only arise when litigation is pending or contemplated and that will be only so where the party regards litigation as probabl...

3. Pure - Ahipara 1B2B - (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 109 (69 TTK 109) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...and importance of the matter” for the purpose of s 288(2)(b) must, by definition, include the various evidence that 3 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). 69 Taitokerau MB 117 relates to the application: that is, the evidence that goes to whether the partition is “necessary to facilitate the effective operation, development, and utilisation of the land”; “the effect...

4. Te Tii Waitangi B3 Trust (2011) 17 Taitokerau MB 294 (17 TTK 294) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...-and this is the forum for that to be addressed. H Rameka: No Sir it isn't. The beneficiaries are the owners of the land with respect to the Court, not this Court. But, as soon as I get your thing then I will know what timeframe I have to appeal. Thank you very much for hearing my korero. [11] Mr Rameka then left the hearing. [12] I have summarised Mr Rameka’s views as best as I can. Having seen and heard Mr Rameka in person I would describe his manner as belligerent a...

5. CAC 20006 v Spencer [2013] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...of the 8 factors for that is we are not convinced that the complainants are particularly out of pocket because of the conduct of the defendant. [29] 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 ______________________________ Ms J Robson Member ______________________________ Mr J...

6. Mansfield v Pomana – Matahiwi 1A and 2 other blocks (2013) 22 Takitimu MB 123 (22 TKT 123) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...Perenara v Pryor – Matatä 930, [2004] 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233); Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) [2004] 34 Tairāwhiti Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98); Apatu v Puna – Owhaoko C1 and 2 [2010] Mäori Appellate Court MB 34 (2010 APPEAL 34). 22 Takitimu MB 128 [23] It must be obvious that the trustees should never have allowed this situation to arise. It is their duty to know their terms of trust, to act prudently and to protect the assets of the trust. By failin...

7. CAC20004 v Li & Ors [2015] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...particular defendants. The fines are to be paid within three months of the date of this decision to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington. 8 [40] 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 ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 43 Booth v Big Kahuna Holdings Limited Interlocutory [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...where a litigant is impecunious, although resident in New Zealand. This reinforces the desirability of a broader approach, and consideration of a range of factors in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s observation in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd that:7 [15] The rule [for security for costs] itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 8 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...for no other purposes: (b) if copies of any documents have been made available by any party,— (i) those copies must be returned to that party within 28 clear days after the conclusion of the proceedings or after the conclusion of any related appeal, whichever is the later; and (ii) copies of any of those copies must not be retained by the party to whom those copies were made available: (c) the information contained in any document so disclosed but not used in evidence in the pro...

10. Shropshire v March LCRO 64 / 2010 (28 October 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

    ...hope or expectation that the outcome of better communications would have opened up to discussions on matters, including child support. [4] When the former wife attended on the Practitioner in respect of the CSA assessment the opportunity to appeal it was already passed. Neither the Practitioner nor her client knew that the assessment had been made on the basis of insufficient information having been provided by the Applicant to the IRD, and that it was therefore erroneous. The...