Search Results

1. Taueki v Procter - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2021) 437 Aotea MB 86 (437 AOT 86) [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...that demonstrated the projects undertaken by the former trustees were a distraction from the key task of dealing with the poor water quality in Lake Horowhenua. 3 Pook v Matchitt - Matangareka 3B [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2019 APPEAL 167) 437 Aotea MB 91 [11] Further, Mr Watson argued that the projects undertaken by the former trustees were simply “feel good” activities which did not address or provide any tangible improvement on water quality, given...

2. Donaldson v Hemi - Whaanga 1D1D Roadway (2021) 230 Waikato Maniapoto MB 168 (230 WMN 168) [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...electronic form or by electronic means of any document required to be produced under this rule but may require evidence of the authenticity of the document. [24] The test for admission of further evidence in proceedings is set out in the Court of Appeal case Dragicevich v Martinovich.8 That test has also been adopted by the Māori Appellate Court in determining whether to grant leave to adduce further evidence in an appeal under r 8.18 of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011.9 The Dra...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 122 Grafton Downs Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   Grafton Downs Limited v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 122 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under section 120 the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN GRAFTON DOWNS LIMITED PHOENIX PROPERTY ADVISORY LIMITED (ENV-2023-AKL-000157) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge M J L Dickey sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Last case event: 1...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...