Search Results

1. Gisborne District Council v Hautapu - Tatarahake No.1 (2015) 50 Tairawhiti MB 199 (50 TRW 199) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...Māori Land Court must take is first to consider the number of owners both on a head count and shareholding basis who 6 Smith v Courtney – Ohuirua No 2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 284 (2011 APPEAL 284). 7 Cumming – Omaio 8 and Omaio 45 (2009) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 299 (12 AP 299). 50 Tairawhiti MB 208 indicate their support or otherwise for the application. That support or opposition must then be weighed havin...

2. Albert v Winitana - Heiotahoka 2B, Te Kopani 36 and Te Kopani 37 Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 52 Tairawhiti MB 136 (52 TRW 136) - (PDF, 212 KB) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...duties as a trustee. (2) The Court may at any time, in respect of any trustee of a trust to which this section applies, enforce the obligation of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise.) [17] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal underscored the relevant duties of trustees. I adopt the principles set out in that decision. 6 The Court has extensive powers when considering an application for the enforcement of obligations. Initially the Court may require tr...

3. Quaife – Part Whakapoungakau 1B3G Roadway (2015) 127 Waiariki MB 171 (127 WAR 171) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...of notice being given to owners and the consideration of their views. 9 The 7 Ngunguru Coastal Investments Limited – Horahora 1B4A2D1 and Other Blocks [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 80 (2012 APPEAL 80). 8 At [71]. 9 Tauhara Middle 4A1J11A (2002) 75 Taupo MB 151 (75 TPO 151). 127 Waiariki MB 179 Court noted in that decision that the proposal to declare the Māori roadway a public road and vest it in the local council...

4. Recorded Music NZ Limited v Telecom NZ 6806 [2014] NZCOP 4 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...As noted in a number of the Tribunal’s decisions,14 the factors identified by the Applicant may well be common to most the matters before it. As such the conduct does not meet the ordinary definition of “flagrancy” identified by the Court of Appeal in Skids Programme Management Limited & Ors. v McNeill & Ors 15 namely conduct that implies the existence of scandalous conduct or deceit; something beyond the common case. [43] Moreover, given BitTorrent Protocol software c...

5. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 2688 [2013] NZCOP 13 [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...holder, not the general public. [51] The rights holder observed the similarity between this provision and s 121(2) dealing with flagrancy and similar considerations in assessing additional damages in other copyright cases. It referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Skids21 but the Tribunal does not find that of much assistance. In that case the court was able to consider factors such as the intention of the parties, their means, their conduct – none of which are available to...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Inglis in Liu: [10] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties are to be carefully weighed. The balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd 8 as follows: 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 order...

7. Chief Executive, Ministry for Culture and Heritage - Tāonga Tūturu found at Plimmerton (2012) 283 Aotea MB 166 (283 AOT 166) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...Maori Land Court has jurisdiction under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section. (4) To avoid doubt, section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and any other relevant provision in that Act, applies to any claim for ownership or any appeal lodged under this Act. [25] In addition to the decision cited earlier concerning a waka Tiwai, this Court has also considered claims to täonga tuturu from the west coast of the lower North Island in Hirini v Thomas.3...

8. CAC10063 v Raj [2013] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...Porlares, and $65,000 to Mr Dalangin, all to be paid to those persons 11 respectively by the defendant within two months of the date of this decision. [54] 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 ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member _____________________________...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 39 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...provides that the test for justification is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the Court is entitled to enquire into the merits of the redundancy business decision. 9 The genuineness of the redundancy remains a key focus. Once that is established, if an employer concludes that th...

10. [2015] NZEnvC 066 Waiheke Marinas Limited [pdf, 572 KB]

    ...AO 18/93 2 See for instance Haslam v Selwyn DC (1993) 2 NZRMA 628; Mills v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2005] NZRMA 227; Coull v Christchurch City Council (Environment Court) Decision C077/06; Shell NZ Limited v Porirua City Council (Court of Appeal) CA 57/05 3 (2014) ELRNZ 29 at paragraph [42] Matiatia Direct Referral (Decision re out of scope) 5 reduction in the scale, intensity or character of a proposal will often be found to be within scope. [12] There IS nothing abou...