Search Results

1. Barnes v Adlam – Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 127 Waiariki MB 184 (127 WAR 184) [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...The results of the voting on the three options were: 3 Adlam v Savage – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec No. 2B2A Parish of Matata (2015) 2015 Māori Appellate Court MB 59 (2015 APPEAL 59). 4 Trustees of the Otonga Whānau Trust v The Trustees of Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec 2B No. 2B No 2A Parish of Matata (2014) 95 Waiariki MB 176 (95 WAR 176). 127 Wa...

2. Whaanga - Anewa (2012) 22 Tairawhiti MB 167 (22 TRW 167) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD 22 Tairāwhiti MB 168 Introduction [1] The background to this application is outlined in the Māori Appellate Court decision recorded at 2011 Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). I do not propose to restate what the Māori Appellate Court has already sufficiently summarised. [2] This application was remitted to the Māori Land Court for consideration of three matters, as noted at [75] of the M...

3. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application for Interim Non-Publication Orders) [2013] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...only for a limited period, whether fixed in the order or to terminate in accordance with the order; or if it is not so made, it shall have effect permanently. (3) If any such order is expressed to have effect until the determination of an intended appeal, and no notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal is filed or given within the time limited or allowed by or under the relevant enactment, the order shall cease to have effect on the expiry of that time; but if such a notice...

4. Deliu v New Zealand Law Society [2012] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...to violate directly the international conventions ratified by New Zealand in terms of access to justice, ie, independent and unafraid counsel, for the purpose of following his own agenda” (para [78]). [6] In an application for special leave to appeal dated 14 October 2008 and filed in Ley v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (SC77/2008) the first three grounds of appeal were framed in the following terms: 1. Justice Harrison was actually or apparently biased; 2. Ju...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 83 Wilson v Wilson [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...Act (which relates to the manner in which a company may enter into contracts and other obligations), a company may use a generally recognised abbreviation of a word or words in its name if it is not misleading to do so. … [54] The Court of Appeal considered s 25(2) in Clarence Holdings Ltd v Hall. 21 In that decision, McGrath J stated: [39] The general policy of s 25 of the 1993 Act … is first, every company should state its name clearly and accurately in its written com...

6. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 Trust (2014) 32 Takitimu MB 63 (32 TKT 63) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...hearings before this Court, as far as I have been able to ascertain in recent times, took place in 2005 before Deputy Chief Judge Isaac, as he then was. As foreshadowed, directions and decisions were issued and were subjected to an unsuccessful appeal. Hearings have been held before me since 2011 and are ongoing due to the complexity of the issues currently before the Court, the lack of readiness to proceed on the part of some of the parties and the dearth of records critical to the...

7. Robinson Family Trust v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 8 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...subsequent purchasers of residential properties for defects caused or not prevented by its building inspector‟s negligence.5 [34] The High Court decision of Body Corporate 188529 v North Shore City Council (Sunset Terraces)6, which was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court, clarified that the duty of a local authority was to take reasonable care in performing its inspection work during construction and to ensure compliance with the building consent issued and to only certif...

8. LCRO 145/2015 and 148/2015 YK v GS and GS v YK [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...Ltd [2009] NZSC 72, [2010] 1 NZLR 35. 4 Standards Committee decision at [66]. 5 It is not uncommon for tribunals, be it a Standards Committee, a Coroner, a District Court Judge or indeed a High Court Judge to have their decision subject to appeal or some form of challenge. If on every occasion that such a challenge was made, a Judge or Tribunal member was required to recuse him or herself or itself, then the administration of justice in all its forms would become impossibly compli...

9. Transcript of speeches KG Smith [doc, 91 KB]

   ...principal area of practice but you also have experience in civil and criminal litigation and resource management law. Your Honour has many many years of court experience and you have appeared in a variety of courts and tribunals including the Fisheries Quota Appeal Authority, the full Court of the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal. Your Honour has also been very active in the legal community and you’ve been a member of a number of New Zealand Law Society committees. Most recently you...

10. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) [pdf, 109 KB]

    ...that therefore the regulation had “no force”. [45] Mr HN advised that the NZLS Board had taken advice from counsel on the LCRO decision and had: … a different view [from the LCRO] based on s 113(2) of the LCA and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Shand … which establish that a lawyer’s “just claim” to set off costs may take priority over the obligation under s 110 and that there is therefore no inconsistency between the statutory and regulatory provisions. [46] Mr...