Search Results

1. Peni v Pahi — Tiroa E Block and Te Hape B Block (2010) 1 Waikato Maniapoto MB 25 (1 WMN 25) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Kuiti) Appearances: Mr Spencer Webster for the Applicant Mr Aidan Warren and Mr Glenn Tootill for the Respondents Judgment: 18 January 2010 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S TE A MILROY Introduction [1] Hardie Peni (“the applicant”) filed an application under s 231 and s 238 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 for review of trust and for enforcement of the obligations of the trust. The original application was filed on 17 April 2009. An amended application was filed...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Holland [2022] NZLCDT 9 (3 March 2022) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...that we adopt as the organising headings for this judgment, namely: • breaches of fiduciary duties (including profiting while in a fiduciary capacity); • failure to maintain adequate records; and • failure to account. [4] Ms Holland filed documents suggesting a variety of defences. They included a denial that a lawyer could be liable for conduct outside the provision of regulated services; that this was a family issue, inappropriate for Law Society intervention; and th...

3. Waitangi Tribunal Guide to Practice 2023 [pdf, 900 KB]

   ...27 Maps 28 Record of inquiry and document distribution 28 Part 5 : Filing and Service of Documents 31 General filing procedures and timetables 31 Distribution lists...

4. NZ Law Commission review of the law of Trusts [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   REVIEW OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS November 2010, Wellington, New Zealand | R E P O R T 1 1 9 A TRUSTS ACT FOR NEW ZEALAND August 2013, Wellington, New Zealand | R E P O R T 1 3 0 E31(130) August 2013, Wellington, New Zealand | REPORT 130 REVIEW OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS A TRUSTS ACT FOR NEW ZEALAND The Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisory body established by statute to undertake the systematic review, reform and development of the law of New Zealand

5. [2017] NZEnvC 162 Mawhinney v Auckland Council [pdf, 24 MB]

   ...has, therefore, ' " determined that your application is incomplete and returns the application to you (in accordance with section 88(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991). As you are aware, if you are unhappy with this decision, you may file an objection with the Council under section 357 of the Resource Management Act 1991 . [Emphasis added] Per Toogood J in Mawhinney v Auckland Council [2012] NZHC 1943 at [13] . P W Mawhinney, evidence-in-chief at [44] [Environment Cour...

6. LCRO 182/2014 DL v SJ, GS and PQ [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...to the occupation licence, less rest home deductions. Response by Mr DL [29] Mr DL’s response, sent in a letter to the Complaints Service dated 20 March 2014, may be summarised as follows: (a) he had no knowledge of either of the estate files of Mrs and Mr Y; (b) he had not had any contact with Mr and Mrs SJ for several years before Mr SJ telephoned him in late 2013; (c) Mr SJ indicated that he and his wife were having difficulty in getting information from Mr DL’s law fi...

7. Overview Trustee Ltd as trustee of the Carrigafoyle Trust v Cook & Anor as trustees of the CC Trust [2011] NZWHT Auckland 35 [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...10(d) October evidence) that the exterior paint system approved in the building consent had been changed to Xypex, about which he had doubts. (He did not seem to agree with Mr Morrison, the claimant‟s other expert). [21] In a spreadsheet filed in June 2010 Mr Medricky indicated that the fault he was concerned with was the horizontal and vertical cracking in the blockwork. His further concern was not that the Xypex was not a generally suitable product, but that it may not seal...

8. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...generous in that regard. However, once counsel suggested a more reasoned figure, Mr SY set out to account to the four beneficiaries for that part of the retention fund to which they then became entitled. [143] Nor is there any suggestion that the fees charged by Mr SY for the steps taken in the administration of TY’s estate, were excessive. [144] His lapse was that for several years he effectively ignored Ms LT and LN. [145] It will be disappointing to Mr SY that after [many] y...

9. McAsey and Gill v Wellington 356 Committee APPEAL [2011] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...undue delay in the charges being prosecuted and brought to an hearing had rendered the proceedings an abuse of process. At the hearing of the application for stay Dr Stevens QC submitted that the period of concern related to the time elapsed from the filing of defence affidavits on 8 May 2009. [66] The 357 Committee, in its determination on the application for stay, found that the period from 8 May 2009 to the end of November 2009 was taken to enable the obtaining of a reply affidavi...

10. Nicholas v Kameta - Estate of Whakaahua Walker Kameta Te Puke 2A2A3B1 and 2A2A3B2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 500 (2011 APPEAL 500) [pdf, 265 KB]

    NICHOLAS V KAMETA MAC 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 500 31 August 2011 IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 500 (2011 APPEAL 500) A20100002483 UNDER Section 58 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Estate of Whakaahua Walker Kameta, Te Puke 2A2A3B1 and 2A2A3B2 BETWEEN PHYLLIS RANGI NICHOLAS, JANE TIWHA, ANDRE NICHOLAS, CHARMAINE NICHOLAS, MARSHALL NICHOLAS, AND BRUCE NICHOLAS Appell