Search Results

1. Maori Trustee v Hanford - Ohiro 19 and 21 Block 10 (Polhill Gully) (2006) 165 Aotea MB 131 (165 AOT 131) [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   ...purpose of collating further information to address issues raised by owners. No adverse criticism or comment was recorded in the minutes of the May hui of either the content or quality of the additional information provided; (m) Mr Hanford, who requested further material at the March meeting, did not attend the May hui. He claimed this was because he thought he would not get a fair hearing and referred to communications with a Mr Buchanan which he said left him with an impression. B...

2. Apostolakis v Attorney-General No. 2 (Strike-Out Application) [2017] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...Universal College of Learning at [57] to [59]: [57] Parties seeking redress from Tribunals and Courts must state their claim in a way which enables the Court or Tribunal and parties responding to the claim to understand what the claim is about. Claims should be pleaded in the most succinct and concise way possible. [58] Tribunals and Courts, and responding parties, should not be left in the position of attempting to make sense of a “morass of information” (to borrow the Tribunal’...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 197 Aurora Energy Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...Space and Recreation. Except that: a. • The following are exempt from Rule 39.5.2: i. Minor upgrading of electricity transmission and distribution or telecommunication lines. ii. The addition of a single supporting structure within formed legal road, where it is reguired to provide a customer connection to an existing line. iii. New mid-span support structures within formed legal road, where these are reguired on an existing line to meet the safety clearance reguiremen...

4. Auckland Standards Committees 3 and 4 v Banbrook [2017] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 404 KB]

   ...could attend the appeal hearings. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that the Practitioner filed an appeal. The Complainant sent the Practitioner a number of emails between 1 August and 6 December 2016 relating to the appeal, eventually requesting a refund of fees, which she never received. (f) He did not maintain regular contact with the complainant and/or respond to enquiries from her in a timely manner Following her payment of $4,000 in around July 2016 to act for...

5. Hall v Opepe Farm Trust (2010) 19 Waiariki MB 258 (19 WAR 258) [pdf, 442 KB]

   ...Second Respondent 19 Waiariki MB 259 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction [1] Background [10] The land [10] The trust [11] Financial position and performance [13] Procedural History [14] Request for trustees’ resignations [14] Interim injunction issued [15] Interim decision [20] Post hearing events [22] Mussel Farming Investment [25] Current status of the investment [32] Appli...

6. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 56 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...their inquiry has completed. � 2 Editorial The Waitangi Tribunal has re- cently re-launched its website, with a new look and focus on infor- mation availability. The new site is at www.waitangi-tribunal. govt.nz and it will provide updated in- formation on the Tribunal’s activities. The site will contain information on the Waitangi Tribunal, its mem- bers, the status of current inquiries, the Treaty of Waitangi and its prin- ciples and education kits for schools. The new sect...

7. Philpott v Zderich [2011] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...with the involvement of the former lawyer of Messrs Ryan and Ferris. Mr Gates claimed that he was put under pressure to change his statement and that this had led to a falling out with Ryan and Ferris. He was subpoenaed to give evidence at the request of the claimant. [75] In his evidence, Mr Ryan said that he had no personal involvement at all in the installation of the cladding. He claimed that Page | 22 in 1996 the company had a large staff and that a number of...

8. Sandy v Khan LCRO 181 / 2009 (25 December 2009) - Decision on orders [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...order will be made accordingly. Penalty [39] Mr Khan submitted that this was not a case where punitive orders were appropriate. He submitted that he had not preferred his own interest over that of his client but rather foolishly acceded to a request that his firm act for both parties. He suggested that even had independent counsel been obtained for Ms Sandy the outcome would not have been greatly different. [40] Mr Khan notes that the Standards Committee did not see that there h...

9. Te Manutukutuku 80 [pdf, 13 MB]

   ...Matariki e tiaho iho nei. Matariki e ārau ana ! Ngā mihi me ngā hua nui o te tau hou Māori ki a tatou. Tēnā tātou. It is a privilege to be introducing this issue of Te Manutuku­ tuku as the acting chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. The former chair­ person, Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, recently celebrated his 70th birthday, completing his term as the chief judge of the Māori Land Court and the chairperson of the Tribunal. Our trib­ ute to him features in this issue, and we...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 20 Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 537 KB]

    ...intentions in resuming bargaining.5 The Court’s conclusion was that Jacks Hardware did not return to bargaining in February 2015 other than “…in a very restricted, artificial and strategic way”.6 The company’s bargaining consisted of a request for a concession and, when that was declined, to declare it was not prepared to continue bargaining.7 The Court concluded that the company’s statement, that it was returning to bargaining, could not reasonably have meant simply...