Search Results

1. Tipene v Tipene - Motatau 2 Section 49A4F(2014) 85 Taitokerau MB 2 (85 TTK 2) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...order in favour of a non-owner. However, an order vesting interests in the land or a right to possession of the land (or part of it) in favour of a non-owner will likely offend the kaupapa and provisions of the Act. Although in Grace the Court of Appeal did not completely rule out that possibility. Where the Court concludes that a non-owner is entitled to equitable relief, the Court will in the first place look to awarding monetary compensation. If monetary compensation is inappropr...

2. Shankar v Ahuja [2015] NZIACDT 36 (31 March 2015) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...provisions in the Immigration Act. He did so without giving proper advice and taking informed instructions on the matter, and Immigration New Zealand rejected the request. [2.9] The complainant could not work and suffered hardship while she successfully appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. [3] Mr Ahuja says the complainant’s account is untrue. He says he did receive instructions, but before he could lodge the application, the complainant removed papers from his office...

3. Rihia v Te Runanganui o Ngati Hikairo - Lake Rotoaira Trust (2012) 287 Aotea MB 44 (287 AOT 44) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...aware of his decision referred 7 67 Tokaanu MB 168 (67 ATK 168) 8 Ibid, at p170 9 Ibid 10 283 Aotea MB 112 (283 AOT 112) 287 Aotea MB 49 to above being subject to successful appeal or rehearing. So the beneficial owners ought to have been aware that there had been no annual meetings or elections for many years by the simple fact that none had been held. Despite this, as mentioned, there do not appear to have be...

4. BORA Criminal Justice Reform Bill [pdf, 398 KB]

   ...judgments. Firstly, the Article applies only to changes in the maximum penalty. Secondly, it is reasonably foreseeable that within the maximum penalty, sentencing practises and guidelines of the courts may change. United States 15. The US Courts of Appeals have repeatedly held that the right in respect of retrospective penalties is not violated by retroactive sentence enhancements. In a line of judgments,[6] the most recent of which was delivered on 3 August 2006,[7] the Courts of App...

5. Heta - Taiharuru 4C3B (2010) 13 Taitokerau MB 203 (13 TTK 203) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Act”) that suggest that such a division of titles may not be a “partition” and therefore may be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. [33] In Whangarei County Council – Rehuotane B2D2 and others3 the Māori Appellate Court allowed three appeals where the lower Court had granted partition orders creating multiple sections, the majority of which were then vested in the same owners in their same shares. The factual background was that these were coastal subdivisions where the t...

6. IK v VR LCRO 227/2014 (21 December 2015) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...decision and quash the finding of unsatisfactory conduct and then refer that complaint to the Tribunal to be considered together with the two complaints referred there. [41] Mr AW submits that this latter course would be consistent with the Court of Appeal’s approach in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, 8 in which (according to Mr AW) the Court indicated a view9 Role of the LCRO on review that cases involving multiple complaints of varying degrees of seriousness against the same pra...

7. LCRO 116/2015 QO v Standards Committee (14 June 2018) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...applications for review. [9] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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...

8. [2017] NZEnvC 173 National Trading Company of New Zealand v Auckland Council [pdf, 872 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC l7-3 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 appeals against the decision on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the proposed Plan) pursuant to s 156(1) of the LGATPA proposed plan hearing topic 043/044 Transport - car parking NATI...

9. Cooper v Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2017] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...against Hamilton Pharmacy for its alleged breach of the Record of Settlement. It is claimed the disclosures earlier referred to were in breach of an express term of confidentiality. When the ERA dismissed his application for name suppression Mr Cooper appealed to the Employment Court. In that court an unopposed interim suppression order was made by Chief Judge Colgan on 8 May 2015. That order was continued by Judge Perkins on 16 July 2015. However, since obtaining interim name suppre...

10. LCRO 50/2017 TG v JT and TAP LIMITED (26 January 2018) [pdf, 292 KB]

    ...Scope of Review [18] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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...