Search Results

1. Cranstone - Kauangaroa No 2 (2017) 366 Aotea MB 250 (366 AOT 250) [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...roadway over a Māori reservation in the absence of the consent of the beneficiaries. 7 Trustees of Tauwhao Te Ngare v Shaw - Tauwhao Te Ngare [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 394 (2014 APPEAL 394) 366 Aotea MB 257 [34] In that case I issued a minority judgment. I did not agree that the Māori Land Court could lawfully exercise the discretion to issue a roadway order over a Māori reservation without the consent of the b...

2. [2019] NZREADT 37 - Tafilipepe - penalty [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...by Ms Tafilipepe, we do not consider it necessary to make any orders as to completion of particular training courses. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ________________ Ms N Dangen Member ___________...

3. Flows in the Justice System [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Distribution of proportion of sentence served, 2003 compared to 20176 Many more people are now serving all, or nearly all, of their imposed sentences. 6 The graphs showing proportion served include people released early on compassionate release, on appeal or who died while serving a prison term. Figure 13. Serious violence sentences, more than two years imposed length 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% – 10% 11% – 20% 21% – 30% 31% – 40% 41% – 50% 51% – 60% 61% – 70...

4. Rophia v Tipene - Matua Porangahau No2B No 10 (2020) 86 Takitimu MB 84 (86 TKT 84) [pdf, 372 KB]

   ...was inappropriate for Mr Tipene-Matua to act contrary to the decision of a majority of trustees. The marae committee are only entitled to 4 Tatere v Te Aute Trust Board - Mangatainoka No 1BC No 2C [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 105 (2013 APPEAL 105) 5 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 6 Robinson v Pett (1734) 3P WMS 249, (1734) 24 ER 1049; Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44; Boardman v Phipps [1966] 3 All ER 721; and Fenwick v Naera [2015] NZSC 68, [2016] 1 NZLR 354 at [70] – [73]...

5. Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...things, there are no statutory restraints of a person’s movements (accompanied by penalties for non-compliance).14 The existing breath-screening test (in relation to alcohol) is considered by the courts to amount to a detention.15 37. The Court of Appeal has held that a detention may be "arbitrary if it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures”.16 38. Unde...

6. Faulkner - Ohuki 1C Sec2 (2019) 183 Waikato Maniapoto MB 45 (183 WMN 45) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...owners support the application. 3 Bhana v Paniora – Wairau North 1B2C (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 139 (39 TTK 139). 4 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block (2011) 2011 Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). Although this case concerned an application for partition under s 288(2)(b), the relevant statutory language is identical to s 329(2)(b). 183 Waikato Maniapoto MB 52 [25] Not all owners who responded support the occup...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Grewal, Preet & Co Real Estate Limited, Voordouw and Mason [2018] NZREADT 70 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...Voordouw Mason - penalty [62] We do not consider it necessary, in either case, to make an order as to further education. [63] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _____________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ____________________ Mr G Denley Member...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 164 Bernie v Auckland Council [pdf, 6.5 MB]

   ...order under 2 314(1)(f) may be lodged­ (a) (not relevant), (b) by any other person, not later than three months after the date on which the policy statement or plan becomes operative. [16] These provisions, 0.12.6 Standards, were not subject to appeal, and were operative by 15 November 2016, some 12 months before this application was filed. As such, no action for failure to comply with the First Schedule can be brought three months thereafter. Thus, this application under s 314(1)(f...

9. LCRO 216/2020 YH v DP (29 July 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...at least September 2017, being two years before Ms YH lodged her complaint. 3 See the table prepared by the Committee at [13]. 4 Standards Committee decision at [10], in which the Committee referred to the well-known judgment of the Court of Appeal in: Cortez Investments Ltd v Olphert and Collins [1984] 2 NZLR 434 (CA) at 441. 6 [29] Review Officers have routinely held, as have Standards Committees, that “special circumstances” exist to go beyond the two-year reach, when a...

10. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 298 KB]

    ...loss or damage for which compensation is payable under any Act of Parliament other than the Earthquake Commission Act 1993. [47] At the time of the damage the limit in s 18 EC Act was $100,000 plus GST. [48] In Doig v Tower Insurance the Court of Appeal commented on a clause which was for all intents and purposes the same as in the current case: It was what is commonly called “top-up cover”, over and above the EQC statutory obligation. Tower’s obligation to pay is triggered b...