Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 028 Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...hours (at the most) could reasonably have been required in relation to each of the two issues (the Anderson Lloyd memorandum and Policy 7.2.1.7). [11] BFDL submits that if the court considers the threshold for an award of costs has been met, the requested sum would clearly and obviously constitute a penalty rather than constituting ‘just compensation’ for additional costs actually incurred by QLDC. [12] BFDL submits if an award were to be made, a sum in the range of $2,000...

2. Fleet v Kennedy - Succession to Carol Ngawhira Tanui Fleet [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 46 (2020 APPEAL 46) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Court. [14] We have carefully considered the evidence filed in the lower Court, the transcript of the hearing, and the submissions of counsel. Though persuasively argued, we can see no reason to come to a different view on the evidence than that formed by Judge Armstrong. It is clear from his decision that he took into account all of the evidence before him. He specifically referred to the evidence of Mrs MacDonald. He also assessed that evidence in the context of all the eviden...

3. Keeble v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover and Suspension of Entitlements) [2022] NZACC 222 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

4. Edgecombe - Estate of Taiawhio Waaka (2012) 19 Takitimu MB 165 (19 TKT 165) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...19 Tākitimu MB 173 [28] Dr Smith’s report notes; a. In customary practice, a whāngai could be allocated land by the adopted parents, but the allocation could only be permanent if there was endorsement from the hapū. 6 b. Some forms of customary tikanga were still practiced in the twentieth century for the purposes of reinforcing whakapapa links between groups and for individuals to succeed to land interests on behalf of particular whānau. 7 c. Whāngai practice...

5. Housing New Zealand Ltd v Tawhai - Te Horo 2B2B2B Residue (2011) 33 Taitokerau MB 11 (33 TTK 11) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...counsel’s unrealistic assessment of Ms Tawhai’s situation. Ms Tawhai and her counsel took an unsatisfactory approach to the preparation for and attendance at the hearing. The initial fixture of 15 February 2011 was adjourned at Mr Potter’s request because of his inability to brief witnesses. Ultimately, those witnesses were not called to give evidence and even Ms Tawhai did not give evidence at the hearing. Mr Potter was otherwise dilatory in complying with the Court�...

6. [2020] NZREADT 49 - Hammond v The Real Estate Agents Authority (12 October 2020) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...“all EQC works have been completed and the property is ready to be occupied by the next lucky owner”. [4] Mr and Mrs Hammond entered into an agreement to purchase the property on 18 February 2019, conditional on finance, a satisfactory Land Information Memorandum, solicitor’s approval, a satisfactory building report, and the assignment of the benefit of any outstanding claims for earthquake damage. [5] Mr and Mrs Hammond obtained two building inspection reports. The first

7. LCRO 235/2014 SV v BG and HD (18 July 2017) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...orders on the basis set out above. Review hearing [21] This review was determined on the papers with the consent of both parties pursuant to s 206(2) of the Act, after an applicant only review hearing had been set down but cancelled at Mr SV’s request following issue of a Direction referring to the jurisdictional bar on this Office considering the first decision. The only issues available for review relate to the consequences that should follow the determination of unsatisfact...

8. Reedy v Atkins - Waitangi A1 A1 (2019) 76 Tākitimu MB 54 (76 TKT 54) [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...it is the sole property of Godfrey and Wi Pewhairangi Reedy Jnr. In accordance with the Māori Appellate Court decision Philips v Ashby cited above, we can see no reason why the application for the vesting should be declined. [21] As to the request for an adjournment for a whānau hui, once again, it is the right of the owners of the land to take whatever steps they consider appropriate as to its retention and utilisation. In vesting the shares in his nephew, Mr Reedy is ensuring...

9. Pairama v Tutara - Ururua 2B2 (2020) 217 Taitokerau MB 153 (217 TTK 153) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...that due to the Covid 19 level three restrictions imposed on Auckland from 12 August 2020 to 11:59pm 26 August 2020, his client was unlikely to meet the Court’s deadline, although it was his intention to move out. [19] I have now received requests from both parties to determine the outstanding application. Te Ture - The Law [20] Under s 19 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Court may issue an order by way of injunction: (a) against any person in respect of any actu...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 195 The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v JCE [pdf, 377 KB]

    ...1 JCE v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZERA Christchurch 130. 2 Pursuant to ss 123(1)(b), 128 and 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. or any information that might identify him. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for non-publication to continue and, pursuant to cl 12 of sch 3 to the Act order accordingly. For consistency this judgment uses the same descriptor for the defendant as