Search Results

1. 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]...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. [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...

6. AMLCFT Statutory Review Summary Document [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...2009 (the Act) helps to keep New Zealand safe from money laundering and terrorism financing. By making it harder for criminals to launder money or finance terrorism, we also make profit-motivated crime (like selling drugs or defrauding people) less appealing. A review of the Act began on 1 July 2021. This document provides a summary of the key issues that have been identified so far as part of this review. It is based on, and designed to be read alongside, the Consultation Document, whic...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. Wynyard v Waata - Manawakore C1 and D (2022) 247 Taitokerau MB 4 (247 TTK 4) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...functions of a trustee; or (b) the removal is desirable for the proper execution of the trust, and 1 or more of the following grounds for removal are met: 3 Taurua v Harawira – Te Tii Waitangi A [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 328 (2017 APPEAL 328) at [13]. 247 Taitokerau MB 10 (i) the trustee repeatedly refuses or fails to act as trustee: (ii) the trustee becomes an undischarged bankrupt: (iii) the trustee is a corporate trustee that is subject to an insolve...

10. National Standards Committee 2 v Mr Y [2022] NZLCDT 8 (24 February 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...produced at any hearing: 13 (c) an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. (2) Unless it is reversed or modified in respect of its currency by the High Court on appeal under section 253, an order made under subsection (1) continues in force until such time as may be specified in the order, or, if no time is specified, until the Disciplinary Tribunal, in its discretion, revokes it on the application...