Search Results

1. Te Manutukutuku Issue 1 [pdf, 2.7 MB]

   ...claim is the biggest claim to date presented before the Tribunal as it involves a substantial amount of the South Island. In his address, Mr Temm gave a summary of Ngai Tahu's grievances to which counsel for the Crown, Shonagh Kenderdine, has requested the Tribunal for more time to respond. The Tribunal sees these fmal sittings as being vital to the formulation of its report of fmdings to the Minister, and has granted the Crown this extension - although it has caused timetablin...

2. DU & TU v OE [2024] NZDT 75 (30 January 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 75 APPLICANT DU APPLICANT TU RESPONDENT OE The Tribunal orders: 1. OE is to pay TU and DU $200 by 18 February 2024. 2. The balance of the claim is struck out. Reasons: 1. TU and DU are the former parents-in-law of OE who was married to their son CU and with whom OE has a child. CU has a child (XX) from an earlier relationship with AA. At the time OE and CU were married and living together, XX was 11- 12 years old and had regular vis...

3. Te Manutukutuku Issue 11 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...floor Seabridge House 110 Featherston Street Wellington I PO Box 5022 Lambton Quay Wellington Tel: (04) 4993666 Fax: (04) 499 3676 Waitangi Tribunal Division Department of Justice Newsletter ISSN 0114-717X Number II August 1991 NEW CLAIMS REGISTERED WAl203 Claimants: Tuirenga Mokomoko for the Mokomoko family of the Whakatohea tribe Concerning: Statutory pardon for Mokomok9 .convicted and executed for alleged involvement in murdering mission­ ary Volkner Date of regist...

4. ET v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 336 (4 August 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...requires the Tribunal to cancel a contract that exceeds the monetary jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claim must therefore be struck out. Referee: B M Smallbone Date: Friday, 4 August 2023 Page 2 of 2 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...

5. Te Manutukutuku Issue 28 [pdf, 584 KB]

   Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti 0 Waitangi Panui Tekau rna waru Pipiri 1994 Waitangi Tribunal Division Department of Justice Newsletter ISSN 0114-717X Number 28 June 1994 CLAIMS IN HEARING Chathams W AI 64 The Moriori inquiry was opened in the Chatham Islands 9-13 May, and continued the following week, 16-20 May, in Wellington. The claim concerns the failure of the Crown to recognise and protect Moriori customary rights to land and fisheries on Chatham and outlying islands...

6. HN v XE [2025] NZDT 66 (26 February 2025) [pdf, 182 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 66 APPLICANT HN RESPONDENT XE The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HN was an elected member of the [the Board] between 2019 and 2024. 2. As part of that role, emails were sent to his private email account. However, HN became concerned about emails that appeared to be forwarded from a XE email address to his priva...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 112 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...also pointed out, correctly, that Ms Shaw was represented by two counsel at the hearing and was not legally aided. [14] While Mr Mitchell did not depart from his primary submission that no costs should be awarded, he made submissions about the requests for uplifts. Two pertinent points were made about the costs claimed for attendances in the Authority. The first was that it is a low-level forum which should be reflected by a modest costs award if one is to be made. The second p...

8. Beattie v Official Assignee (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...[15] to [30]) left Mr Beattie aggrieved not only in relation to satisfaction of the demands but also in respect of the costs of administering his bankrupt estate. Mr Beattie submits he therefore had good reason to make the two information access requests. Not only did he have a right to the requested information, once it had been provided to him he intended requesting corrections pursuant to IPP 7. [10.2] Mr Beattie believes he had good reason to refuse to deal with the Assignee’s l...

9. OD v MW & FW [2023] NZDT 398 (8 September 2023) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...selling, donating or gifting the voucher to someone else (having previously offered to assist with confirming a booking). 3. Neither respondent attended the hearing, and I note that the address provided for them with the claim is the address of the former restaurant so it is possible that they have not been served notice of the claim. The restaurant appears to have been operated by the limited liability company, E Ltd, which is registered at the same address, has FW as its sole direct...

10. O'Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal) [2023] NZACC 001 [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...case, the correspondence revealed that the Corporation had made no decisions which attracted review rights under section 134 of the Act. The Corporation’s correspondence with Mr O’Neill was advisory in nature. At no time had the Corporation formed a view on, or made a decision about, the merits of any claim Mr O’Neill may have made. Judge McGuire further noted: (a) The 23 August 2019 letter advised Mr O’Neill that the Corporation had previously advised him what he neede...