Search Results

1. Epiha v Peihopa - Kaikou H (2025) 293 Taitokerau MB 225 (293 TTK 225) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...must be taken into account. (e) Despite the amendments to s 240 in 2020 the earlier principles concerning removal of trustees continue to apply including; 10 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17) at [28]. 293 Taitokerau MB 233 (i) Removal is a serious step and is not undertaken lightly; (ii) The trustees at risk must be properly notified in advance; (iii) Technical breaches of Trust in governance instruments may n...

2. Environment Commissioners

   ...She has hands-on experience with all aspects of statutory processes associated with plans, and planning legislation - ranging from preliminary research and identification of key issues and outcomes, to presenting evidence at hearings and resolution of appeals through the Environment Court. This has required working within and managing multi-disciplinary teams and coordinating the inputs from various experts. She has assisted a large number of decision-making panels considering and making decisi...

   Located in:

   1. Environment Court >
   2. About the Environment Court

3. Māori Land Court - Rule 5.11 Schedule - May 2018 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...5/09/2013 CJ 2013/25 - Te Kanawa Pou Haereiti or Te Kanawa Te Pou - and succession orders made at 118 Otorohanga MB 90-92 on 30/07/2001 - Application to the Chief Judge 45/93 Angel June Te Pou 1. Awaiting Administrative Action A20130009145 2/10/2013 Appeal 2013/8 -Tauwhao Te Ngare Block and a preliminary decision of the Chief Judge made on 9 August 2013 at 2013 Chief Judge's MB 567-594 49/93 Phillip Gardiner & Ors Trustees of Tauwhao Te Ngare Trust 1. Awaiting Administrative Action...

4. ENVC combined interested party notices R to Y [pdf, 12 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2013-AKL-000174 AT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) IN THE MATTER an application under section 87G of the Act BETWEEN WAIHEKE MARINAS LIMITED Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent - NOTICE OF PERSON’S WISH TO BE PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS Section 274 Resource Management Act 1991 TO: the Registrar Environment Court PO Box 7147 Wellesley Str

5. [2015] NZEmpC 89 Ngawharau v The Porirua Whanau Centre Trust [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...observed that “in such circumstances, the employee has essentially unilaterally terminated the employment agreement and there is no dismissal”. 5 Reference was also made by Judge Inglis to E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers where the Court of Appeal noted that there was substantial force in a submission from counsel that: 6 … where the issue is whether the employee abandoned the employment, the employer should be cautious in drawing that inference and must face a high threshol...

6. Mason - Te Konoti B3SB (2015) 104 Taitokerau MB 249 (104 TTK 249) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...directly, the consent required for easements other then access easements is no different to that required for access 17 Smith v Courtney – Ohuirua No 2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court 284 (2011 APPEAL 284). 18 Ibid at [30] to [33]. 104 Taitokerau MB 265 easements under s 317(1). That is, the test is whether there is a sufficient degree of support for the application among the owners having regard to the nature and i...

7. Katipa v Dobbs - Harataunga 2C1 [2015] Chief Judge's MB 635 (2015 CJ 635) [pdf, 338 KB]

   2015 Chief Judge’s MB 635 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20100001098 CJ 2010/1 UNDER Section 45 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Harataunga 2 C1 BETWEEN DEAN KATIPA Applicant AND MARIE DOBBS, SHARON WHITE, JOHN MCLEOD, JOHN RABARTS, CAMERON HUNTER, QUENTIN POTAE, JACQUIE HAMON and WALTER TE MOANANUI as the majority of the trustees of Harata

8. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...relied on. We therefore reject this challenge to the extent it is an admissibility challenge. Whether the Disciplinary Tribunal has accorded the wrong weight to any conclusions contained in any judgments is a matter able to be addressed when the appeal is considered, although we do not find it necessary to do so in this case. [34] This decision was followed by Her Honour Thomas J in Deliu.12 [35] It is a matter for the Tribunal as to what weight it accords the judicial comment havi...

9. Milligan v Robert Brown Developments Ltd [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...the Council had taken advice during the adjournment and was willing to proceed. [40] After hearing from the Claimant’s solicitor and the parties representatives, I reviewed the relevant principles as set out in the aforementioned Court of Appeal cases and the IBA Guidelines, advised of my WHRS adjudication record of cases and after carefully considering the contents of the Riskpool letter and the submissions and responses of the parties, I concluded that a reasonable and info...

10. Edwards – Whakatōhea (2018) 183 Waiariki MB 169-194 (183 WAR 169) [pdf, 534 KB]

    ...cancel or amend the s 30 order. The application was referred to Judge Hingston for inquiry, and as part of that process he convened a rehearing and dismissed the s 30 proceedings, effectively cancelling the s 30 order.17 That decision was then appealed by Mr Edwards. The Māori Appellate Court issued its decision on 12 October 1998 granting the appeal.18 While the Court acknowledged the efforts of Judge Hingston in trying to bring about a practical resolution to the interna...