Search Results

1. Bristol v Ngāti Rangi Trust - Rangiwaea-Tāpiri [2017] Chief Judge's MB 269 (2017 CJ 269) [pdf, 435 KB]

   ...Part No 6C and Rangipō Waiu 1B blocks.’ The Chief Surveyor had sought the application because the Crown 2017 Chief Judge’s MB 273 was seeking to use the land for a National Park. On 1 June 1960 the application was dismissed on the request of the Chief Surveyor. 3 [8] Less than a week later, on 7 June 1960, the application was reinstated. 4 At the 17 August 1960 hearing, evidence was given on behalf of Ngāti Waewae that they owned all the surrounding land and laid cl...

2. Te Manutukutuku 73 [pdf, 9.5 MB]

   ...inquiry. Judge Ambler’s widow, Te Tai Ambler, presented the report on behalf of the Tribunal to the deputy chair of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, Keith Ikin. The Tribunal issued these first two parts in advance of the full report in response to requests from the Crown and claimants for an early release of its findings on key issues. The title of the report, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru, was adopted from the term which, the Tribunal was told, Ngāti Maniapoto use for the power of ranga...

3. LCRO 160/2024 XT v YQ (27 June 2025) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...[41] The Committee inquired into the course of events in the various court proceedings and set out its understanding of the relevant outcomes and effects of those proceedings and of the deeds. In doing so, it was clearly endeavouring to be as informative to the applicant as it could, given his misunderstandings of his own legal position and of the respondent’s responsibilities as executor and administrator of Mr X’s estate. [42] It found that the arguments the applicant sought to...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 234 2015 AFT v BCM [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...which were very arguably not made out in this case. I will come back to these. [50] This was not litigation brought repeatedly by the applicant against the respondent or others associated with it, whether plainly or dressed up in alternative forms or forums. It was a serious claim that was brought by the applicant, that he had been dismissed constructively and unjustifiably by his employer from professional employment. The applicant’s claims were that the employer respondent...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...out their respective views of the matter. [3] The facts are: a) On 7 July 2014, the plaintiff’s lawyers contacted the defendant’s lawyers asking whether they were authorised to accept service of the plaintiff’s statement of claim. By email of 7 July 2014, counsel for the defendant confirmed that she was so authorised. b) On the same day a letter was sent by signature-required courier from the plaintiff to the defendant, enclosing by way of service the statemen...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...days whilst further inquiries were made about her health. [53] Then Ms Dowlut resumed work, with the employer being satisfied that she could work and undertake disciplinary processes with appropriate support. At the same time, however, Aurecon requested any information Ms Dowlut wanted considered as part of the disciplinary process. Three weeks later, it attempted to restart the disciplinary process by inviting Ms Dowlut to a meeting. She declined to be involved thereafter, but...

7. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 411 KB]

   ...However, for reasons discussed below in paragraph [99], I need not consider that here. [31] Clause 3 goes no further than granting the discretion to not pay a “claim”. I note that “claim” is not defined by the Act. It may be argued that each request for payment is a “claim”, for the purposes of cl 3. However, this reading goes against the use of the word “claim” in a general insurance context, where a single claim, encapsulates all damage from each damage causing eve...

8. Hamilton v Trustees of Erepeti Marae - Tuahu 3X (2009) 128 Wairoa MB 77 (128 WR 77) [pdf, 931 KB]

   ...(AB & AW Reed, Wellington, 1972 ed) Genealogical Table xiv 'Smith - Tuahu 3X (2006) 113 Wairoa MB 224 (113 WR 224) 128 Wairoa MS 81 [11] The matter was set down for hearing for the first time on 27 March 2007. However, Mr Hamilton requested for health reasons that the hearing be deferred until June 2007. It was duly adjourned until 21 June. On that date, Mr Hamilton was represented by Mr Barney Tupara. However, the trustees did not have counsel and the nature of the all...

9. LM v RB LCRO 332/2012 (15 June 2016) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...as for the Standards Committee. 15 [47] I have therefore given consideration as to whether or not this decision should be published. [48] It is the practice of this Office to seek submissions on publication from the parties if the LCRO forms a preliminary view that publication may be in the public interest. Again, and at this stage, it is a matter of discretion. [49] One of the expressed purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act is “to protect the consumers of legal se...

10. Alloa v Ullapool LCRO 159/09 (22 June 2010) [pdf, 162 KB]

    ...to her, he would be required to give evidence, and could be summonsed for that purpose. [5] The second letter [letter B] became the subject of the Applicant’s complaint to the New Zealand Law Society. In this letter the Practitioner informed the Applicant that he could face potential liability as a party for the losses claimed by R. The Practitioner enclosed a draft amended statement of claim showing the Applicant and his company named as defendants and suggested he may wa...