Search Results

1. Phillips v Paul - Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 No 2 Papakainga 15A2A (2019) 216 Waiariki MB 54 (216 WAR 54) [pdf, 291 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. [24] The principles underlying an application under s 43 were discussed by the Māori Appellate Co...

2. LCRO 185/2015 WD v KG (6 July 2017) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...scope of review [14] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 10020 v McDonald [2018] NZREADT 67 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...leading case in which this principle was identified was the decision of Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633: Generally speaking, a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worse subject, of course, to appeal. Were it otherwise there would be great inconvenience and uncertainty. There are, I think, three categories of cases in which a judgment not perfected may be recalled — first, where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 64 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...(h) any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate. 8 Rule 11(8). 9 Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2]; Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2017] NZHC 3049; and Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2017] NZHC 3026 upheld on appeal in Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30. 10 See the discussion in Schenker AG v Commerce Commission [2013] NZCA 114, (2013) 22 PRNZ 286; referred to in Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZA...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...as to terms of engagement are not applicable to organisations other than law firms.5 [8] This disciplinary action was brought after Mr Brill (an employed or ‘in house’ lawyer) acted for a number of parties in High Court litigation and in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Those persons were entitled to a lawyer who would provide them with an engagement letter; who would give the required disclosure regarding professional indemnity insurance; and who would adhere to the communicat...

6. McQueen v Boon - Waiwhakaata 3E6 Section 4B2 (2023) 261 Waikato Manapoto MB 177 (261 WMN 177) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...role in facilitating relationships within whānau, 5 Boon v McQueen – Waiwhakaata 3E6 Section 4B2 (2021) 214 Waikato Maniapoto MB 1-14 (214 WMN 1-14). 6 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block (2011) Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64); Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Tākitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184); Manuirirangi v Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64); De Loree v Mokomoko and Ors – Hiwarau C (2008) 1...

7. Māori Trustee – Mourea Papakāinga 3D (1995) 240 Rotorua MB 212 (240 ROT 212) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...(i C factua!Backgroynd 240 AotoNI Ml 213 Friday, 28 May 1995 At an times material to this particular case, the land has been vested in MT under 438/53, (now 215, 220/93). In early 1989 it was clear, foRowfng a decision of the Court of Appeal, that the then mortgagees could and would exercise a power of sale over the property to the effect that a substantial and valuable block of Maori frHhold land would be lost to its beneficial owners. MT attempted to rescue the situation b...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hooker [2020] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act).1 [2] That finding was upheld by the High Court in the decision of Jagose J who made his own findings of fact having conducted an independent analysis as to whether misconduct was proved.2 [3] Mr Hooker’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Jagose J was dismissed. The Court observed that the finding of misconduct was open on the facts as found. It was satisfied that “neither the Tribunal nor the High Court erred in law in...

9. ENV-2016-AKL-000xxx Man O'War Farm Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...Environment) and 64 (Subdivision - Rural) MAN O'WAR FARM LIMITED Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISIONS ON PROPOSED PLAN TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND 16 September 2016 1. The Appellant appeals against decisions made by Auckland Council ("the Respondent") on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan ("Unitary Plan") whereby provisions were both included and excluded regarding a matter addressed in Appell...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 161 Eden Epsom Residential Society Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.2 MB]

    ...modifications identified in the decision, met the applicable statutory requirements to be approved. One member concluded that change was not compatible, even with modifications, given the site context and the AUP framework. [2] The decision was appealed to the Environment Court and proceeded to hearing in April 2022 before a differently constituted division of the Environment Court. That Court concluded that on an analysis of the key findings focus/analysis of key issues, inclu...