Search Results

1. 2023 NZPSPLA 060 [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...complaint once litigated cannot be relitigated; that is the principal of res judicata. It is this principle that prevents me from reconsidering the complaint originally filed by CP, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so given this is not an appeal. This complaint is distinguished from the first one as that primarily related to an employee of RTC and his conduct. The original complaint with regard to RTC particularly was on the following matters: [a] That their phone number...

2. 2023 NZPSPLA 060 [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...complaint once litigated cannot be relitigated; that is the principal of res judicata. It is this principle that prevents me from reconsidering the complaint originally filed by CP, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so given this is not an appeal. This complaint is distinguished from the first one as that primarily related to an employee of RTC and his conduct. The original complaint with regard to RTC particularly was on the following matters: [a] That their phone number and...

3. Tipene v Ashby - Motatau 2 Section 31C (2025) 291 Taitokerau MB 211 (291 TTK 211) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. [13] Section 43 contemplates a two-step approach. First, the applicant must have made the applicati...

4. Application for waiver (or refund) of fees for an individual [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...been given a waiver, but your financial circumstances have changed or you’re changing the reason why you are applying for a waiver. Step 1 Give us your court case details Please tick the court that your application is for. Supreme Court Court of Appeal High Court District Court Family Court Location Confirm the action you intend to take (or have already taken) File a new proceeding File a document in proceedings Name of case Document type Comply with a direction for setting...

5. Porou - Whareongaonga 5 Trust (2015) 49 Tairawhiti MB 46 (49 TRW 46) [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...past and those have been the subject of previous decisions of this Court and the Māori Appellate Court. Mr Rulon Kahuroa, for example, was appointed as a result of one set of proceedings conducted in 2003-2004 and that appointment was upheld on appeal. 2 There was further litigation in 2010 seeking to replace two trustees. During that litigation the trustees consistently failed to provide to the Court information concerning the administration of the Trust, despite being directed t...

6. Larkins v Hurae and Ngawaiata Whānau Trust - Waihou Hutoia D2A (2015) 94 Taitokerau MB 120 (94 TTK 120) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...terminate the Hurae and Ngawaiata Whānau Trust (“the whānau trust”). In the original application Moa asked the Court to remove the 19.5710 shares in Waihou Hutoia D2A from the whānau trust and revest them in him. 1 [2] Moa successfully appealed the dismissal of his application. The Māori Appellate Court concluded in its judgment of 9 April 2013 2 that the lower court’s decision was in error in finding that there needed to be unanimous consent for the partial termination...

7. Taia v Taia – Taia Whānau Trust (2015) 132 Waiariki MB 146 (132 WAR 146) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...at the hearings held on 3 February 2014 and 4 August 2014. I also raised this issue at the hearing on 12 June 2015. 9 As such both Tania and Coraglen have had sufficient notice that their removal is sought. [20] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal considered the approach in exercising jurisdiction to remove trustees per s 240 of the Act: 10 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Ca...

8. Domb v REAA Registrar [2014] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...& Langdon [2012] NZREADT 4. [60] In X v Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 10028) (as in Graves), we considered an application for an interim order prohibiting publication of the determination of a Committee decision pending the outcome of an appeal to us. We held that we had the power to make non-publication orders on appeals and set out the principles to consider when determining whether to make such orders. We relied 10 on Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZ...

9. Kidderminster v Orkney & Kiddwelly LCRO 37 / 2010 (3 November 2010) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...family in Court proceedings that the family was involved in relating to a trust or trusts in which they were discretionary beneficiaries. The litigation seems to have been complex and protracted and involved hearings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Messrs Orkney and Kiddwelly are partners in the firm of W, which appears to have acted for the Kidderminsters over a number of years. [2] In relation to the appeal to the Supreme Court the Applicant (and members o...

10. AA v AB LCRO 298/2011 (9 October 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

    ...May 2008. [5] Mr AA submitted an account to ACC in the sum of $51,285.00, for services provided from August 2003 to May 2008. ACC declined to pay. Mr AA challenged the 2 decision by way of the ACC review process (ACC review), and then by appeal to the District Court. [6] Mr AA’s ACC review and appeal applications were unsuccessful. [7] Mr AB represented Mr AA between August 2008 and November 2009 in his claim for recovery of professional fees. [8] Mr AB was instruct...