Search Results

1. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...was found liable as project manager after being in charge of the site, selecting and sequencing the subcontractors. However the issue in Ryang was not whether Mr Lee was the project manager. Mr Lee accepted that he performed this role but appealed to the High Court, after failing to appear before this Tribunal, on the ground that his contract protected him from liability. Ryang therefore does not assist the Council’s case against Mr de Geest. [16] In Hartley v Balemi6...

2. AI v AJ LCRO 01/2012 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his or her own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [26] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:2 …much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the review officer reac...

3. Pahi - Estate of Lucy Williams [2014] Chief Judge's MB 476 (2014 CJ 476) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...~laim that he is a .natural child of the deceased and therefore it is Clear that he is entitled to be recognised as a child of the deceased and to succeed to the deceased's interests accordingly. 1 [2010] MaoriAppellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2 [2009] Chief Judge's MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2014 Chief Judge's MB 486 [11] As a result, I am satisfied that there was an error in the presentation of the facts to the Court. Orders [12] Accordingly, in terms...

4. BORA Biosecurity Law Reform Bill [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...that the other powers of detention in new ss 107 and 107B fall within the ambit of s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act, however we do not consider that the provisions could be interpreted as authorising “arbitrary detentions”. The New Zealand Court of Appeal has stated that a detention is arbitrary when it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures. [4] For this reason arbi...

5. Timoti v Te Are - Torere 33 (2017) 171 Waiariki MB 83 (171 WAR 83) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...5 165 Waiariki MB 139-151 (165 WAR 139-151). 6 170 Waiariki MB 195-211 (170 WAR 195-211). 7 Tatere v Te Aute Trust Board - Mangatainoka No 1B No 2C Tamaki No 2A2A (Balance) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 243 (2013 APPEAL 243). 171 Waiariki MB 86 [15] The applicant raises a further issue regarding a payment made by the Māori Trustee to Hoata Farms Ltd for work done on the block. The applicant submits that the work was not commissioned and th

6. Kawiti v Kawiti - Motatau 2 Section 65A (2017) 162 Taitokerau MB 269 (162 TTK 269) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...and 91 Land Trust (2005) 15 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 192 (15 WGAP 192). 16 151 Taitokerau MB 219-251 (151 TTK 219-251) at 248. 17 See Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Maori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60). 162 Taitokerau MB 279 [40] Wynyard has shown blatant disregard for the authority of the other trustees. He has treated them with contempt and has expressed strong beliefs that he is the true and rightful owner of this l...

7. BORA Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill [pdf, 408 KB]

   ...Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. [1] 7. The law governing ownership of and rights to the marine and coastal area (previously termed the ‘foreshore and seabed’) has been highly contentious and divisive. Until the Court of Appeal decision in Ngāti Apa, [2] it was widely believed that any Māori customary title to the marine and coastal area had been extinguished by various pieces of legislation, and in accordance with Re the 90-Mile Beach. [3] 8. In Ngāti Ap...

8. Preece v Hokotehi Moriori Trust (2010) 5 Te Waipounamu MB 83 (5 TWP 83) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...that land changed to general land: refer Himatangi 2A1 (1962) 70 Otaki MB 29 (70 OTI 29).6 [27] In Jimmieson – Mangawaakino 4D2B (1978) 15 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 334-344, 392-396 (15 APWM 334, 392) the Māori Appellate Court heard an appeal in relation to s 30(1)(h) MAA. [28] In that case the Māori Appellate Court examined previous cases in which the appellant Jimmieson had been involved in. On two previous occasions the appellant sought and was granted orders that s...

9. CAC 401 v Black & Wong [2016] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...submissions on penalty to be received 15 working days thereafter. (c) The Authority may respond to any new matters raised in the defendants’ submissions two working days after the decision. [32] The Tribunal draws to the parties’ attention the appeal provisions of s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. ______________________________ Hon P Andrews Chairperson ______________________________ Ms K Davenport QC Deputy Chairperson _________________________...

10. Cavanagh v Nassiep [2012] NZIACDT 38 (31 July 2012) [pdf, 108 KB]

    ...practice. The letter suggested Mr Cavanagh simply needed to wait for Immigration New Zealand to process his application. The letter also had handwritten notes saying points had not been awarded for Mr Cavanagh being a diesel mechanic, and he should appeal. However, Ms Nassiep could not assist as she was not in New Zealand. [20.5] Ms Nassiep sent an email to Immigration New Zealand dated 24 November 2010. It referred to Mr Cavanagh’s qualifications, and said she was leaving New Ze...