Search Results

1. Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club Ltd - Horowhenua Lake 11 (Lake) Māori Reservation (2015) 337 Aotea MB 68 (337 AOT 68) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...the Court stated: 4 [33] It is inappropriate to strike out a claim summarily unless the court can be certain that it cannot succeed. The case must be “so certainly or clearly bad” that it should be precluded from going forward. Particular care is required in areas where the law is confused or developing. [26] In the recent decision of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd, the Court of Appeal also considered the requirements for striking out an appl...

2. Akura Lands Trust v Te Whata – Akura 1C 3B 2 (2014) 29 Takitimu MB 199 (29 TTK 199) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...me that neither the trustees nor the owners who made their views known wish to treat Mrs Edmonds’ children unfairly or to deny them any residual benefits of the 1992 agreement. At the same time the trustees have quite properly taken action to protect the Trust assets and the beneficiaries from potential enforcement action by the District Council. They have also taken steps to ensure the Trust’s primary income from the lease is not put at risk. Decision [41] There is a prelimin...

3. LCRO 164/2009 Lydd v Maryport [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...Act. That section codifies the “right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law”. There is no evidence that those rights have not been (or will not be) accorded by the Committee. [41] Underlying the submissions for Mr Lydd was the assertion that the complaint was an abuse of process a...

4. Muneez v Deng [2013] NZIACDT 33 (27 May 2013) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...clear her mail promptly. However, her counsel submits that the situation fell short of negligence. He points to the consequences of Ms Deng’s failure, and in particular the 42 day appeal period. Accordingly, Mr Muneez still had adequate time to protect his interests. Presenting the best case [34] Ms Deng accepts she failed to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s letters. [35] However, she says Mr Muneez was informed of the importance of an offer of employment. [36] In that re...

5. Henric Eden v Complaints Assessment Committee 413, Dean Abraham & Angela Sanson [2017] NZREADT 53 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...CAC considered the complaint and decided to inquire into it under s 79(2)(e) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act). The CAC acknowledged that the complaint engaged Rule 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). Rule 6.4 provides that a licensee must not mislead a customer or client, nor provide false information, nor withhold information that should by law or in fairness be provided to a customer or a client. Rule 10.7...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 208 Wei v Sunlight JMB Future Ltd [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...Regulations 2000, reg 6(2)(a)(i)–(ii). a future costs order. Before making an order, the Court must be satisfied that it would be just to do so, especially where that may have the effect of preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. Careful consideration is required in balancing the right of the plaintiff to have access to the Court against the interests of the defendant.11 [34] Mr Fleming acknowledged that Mr Wei’s financial position is not known to Sunlight,...

7. [2021] NZIACDT 11 - YC v Han (19 May 2021) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...party has requested an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [32] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner. 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 Written agreements 18. A licensed immigration adviser must ensure that: a. when they and the client decide...

8. Stender v Evans - Tokata A15 (2006) 75 Ruatoria MB 214 (75 RUA 214) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...orders is effected under Part 5 of the Act. That brings me to the vexed issue of the Matrimonial Property caveat. I note in this regard the case of Bruce v Edwards [2003] 1 NZLR 515 which indicates that Section 88(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 protects an equitable interest against the consequences of any reversal order (annulment) of a change of status order at a rehearing. In Bruce v Edwards [2003] an equitable interests was clearly established. In this case, there is no basis...

9. Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2018) 386 Aotea MB 142 (386 AOT 142) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...Pouhere Taonga, concerning the earthworks. In short, he submits that the trustees are not entitled to undertake the earthworks and related activities given that they have not taken steps to ensure that any important archaeological sites are properly protected. [4] The trustees deny the claims. They say that their invitees are acting lawfully and in accordance with proper instructions issued by the trustees. The trustees dispute Mr Taueki’s right to bring the claims against them...

10. National Standards Committee 1 v Name Suppressed [2021] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...caused to victims, they are expected to give evidence to support the allegations of fact made against an accused person. The availability of alternative means of giving evidence and the ability to have a support person present are intended to protect a complainant as much as possible. We would have had no hesitation in directing that evidence be given in an alternative way, in a closed hearing room and in the presence of a support person. [24] We are also concerned about the n...