Search Results

1. AZ v YX LCRO 175 / 2010 (25 March 2011) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...revised estimate figures”. [83] An estimate is a representation that costs will be in the vicinity of a given sum and all due care must be exercised when providing same. See J and J Abrams Ltd v Ancliffe [1978] 2 NZLR 420. [84] The Court of Appeal has also made some pertinent comments concerning estimates in Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners [2002] NZLR 156 at para 49. In that case the Court stated:- 14 “Second, the question of loss or otherwise due to excess over...

2. Kartikeya v Fernyhough [2014] NZIACDT 44 (03 April 2014) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Registrar has expressed the view that the decision in Geldenhuys v Yap DC Christchurch, CIV 2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014 is potentially relevant to the determination of the present complaint. [17] The Geldenhuys decision is presently subject to an appeal to the High Court. [18] The Registrar has sought to be heard on the potential implications in the present matter. [19] Counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the grounds the effect of the decision has little or no r...

3. Rohipa v Campbell - Estate of Te Maungarongo Wiremu or Morgan Kingi (2008) 184 Gisborne 294 (184 GIS 294) [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...accept her as a whangai. Acceptance by siblings and other members of the whanau is, in terms of the expert evidence of Dr Mahuika, a key element in ascertaining whether a person is a whangai. There is no such acceptance in this case. 53 10 Rotorua Appeal Minute Books 43-54 184 Gisborne MB 309 [33] The evidence also demonstrates that she referred to her older aunts and uncles as just that. They remained her uncles and aunties. [34] There is evidence that this whanau have a hist...

4. E90 Graeme McIndoe - Urban Design - RE – Applicant [pdf, 967 KB]

   ...5.5 and 5.6 are extras on Halsey Wharf. I also note that on one hand these requirements might be considered a restriction but considered in another way they give certainty of provision. 5.20 Mr Groeschner is also concerned that the “visually appealing media and hospitality structures on the eastern end of Halsey Wharf may be higher than the flags themselves”.12 That is unlikely, as the flag poles are respectively 35m and 25m above the wharf level, and they are in an area where t...

5. LCRO 341/2013 QE v ML (nee BM) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...2 Above n 1. 3 Dorbu v the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal HC Auckland CIV-2009-404- 7381, 11 May 2011 at [17]. 4 At [20]. 5 [18] Those comments were noted with approval by the Court of Appeal in Deliu v National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society where the Court said:5 It is of course well-established that the Tribunal is not entitled to determine that facts in issue are proved by accepting without inquiry the

6. Taka v Watene - Koparakore A32A2B3B (2017) 34 Tākitimu MB 163 (34 TKT 163) [pdf, 427 KB]

   ...had been moved on to the land, there was no suggestion that the house does not remain fixed to the land. So, I will 17 Rudolph v Reti – Otetao B3A2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143) 18 See Sione – Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275); Bidois – Te Puna 154D 3B 2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (12 AP 102); and Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 64 Tākitimu MB...

7. Tait v Kruger - Tauarau Block (2021) 252 Waiariki MB 180 (252 WAR 180) [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...recently summarised in Mikaere v Smallman – Mangatawa No 8A, where the Court stated:14 [16] There are several superior court authorities regarding the principles applicable to the serious step of removal of trustees. They include the Court of Appeal judgments Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick, and the Maori Appellate Court decision of Perenara v Pryor. [17] These authorities support the following general propositions: (a) removal is a serious step and is not undertaken lightl...

8. Royal v Waerea - The Mere Royal Whanau Trust (2017) 162 Waiariki MB 117 (162 WAR 117) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...powers under section 244; or (c) terminate the trust if the court is satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of support for termination among the beneficiaries. [21] In Proprietors of Mangakino Township v Māori Land Court, the Court of Appeal noted that s 231 calls for a general review of the trust’s governance and management of its assets on behalf of the beneficial owners, and went on to consider the scope of such review. 9 [21] In carrying out a general review of t...

9. Ruka - Rangihamama X3A and Omapere Taraire E (2008) 123 Whangarei MB 137 (123 WH 137) [pdf, 4 MB]

   ...empha.sised that trustees in such circumstances have the option of seeking directions from the Court and when they fail to do so they must be excused for that omission if relief is to be granted ." [11] In Wong v Burt [2005] NZLR 91 the Comi of Appeal emphasised that under section 73 the Comi must be satisfied that the trustees acted "honestly and reasonably", and that this expression is conjunctive. [12] In weighing up whether to relieve the trustees of liability I tak...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 103 McPherson v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 195 KB]

    ...made provision for shift workers to work up to 175 additional hours per year, so just over 14 additional shifts). In this sense the present case is analogous to New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Mt Cook Airlines Ltd where the Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Court’s finding that relevant daily pay in relation to pilots who were paid a salary and rostered to work up to a maximum of 206 hours per year (based on a varying fortnightly roster) could be assessed on the bas...