Search Results

1. Te Toki — Kopuraruwai 3A2C Reserve Block (2009) 22 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 5 (22 APWM 5) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...Reservation [10] The question of who is entitled to express a view on trusteeship of the Marae and Urupā Reservation is dictated by who are the beneficiaries of the Reservation. [11] The land was first set aside as a Māori Reservation in 1936 at the request of Peneti Hoani. Although that setting aside was never gazetted, it is still relevant for our purposes as it identified that there was a communal meeting house on the land and as under section 298(2) of the Native Land Act 193...

2. Peters - Oriwa 1B1 (2010) 8 Taitokerau MB 210 (8 TTK 210) [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...and Marie Tautari in support of the application. I also heard from Kayleen Mackey and Celia Maki in opposition. I then adjourned the application to chambers for Mr Peters to file further relevant documentation. I subsequently received that information together with a further submission from Kayleen Mackey and a letter from Ian Peters. [7] Kayleen Mackey and Celia Maki addressed the Court on why they opposed the occupation order. In short, aside from obvious personal differences...

3. LCRO 106/2016 CA v BF (15 May 2017) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...any quote is made in Mr BF’s letter of engagement, which sets out the terms on which he agreed to accept Mr CA’s instructions. [3] Mr BF provided Mr CA with copies of various emails, and followed up an authority to uplift the files from his former lawyer on or about 11 August 2015.3 Mr CA’s grievance had already been filed in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) before Mr BF was instructed. Statements of problem had been prepared and filed, the employer’s evidence had...

4. LCRO 76/2013 OP v The Trust (21 July 2017) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...Committee considered that Mr OP had two choices when Mr SJ asked if Ms LM had secured employment elsewhere. He should have either given an honest answer, or told Mr SJ he was instructed not to respond. Mr OP had done neither, and the Committee formed the view that Mr OP’s duty to Ms LM did not justify a falsehood to another practitioner. The Committee was also critical of Mr OP for having failed to put right his misdirection. [16] The Committee concluded that conduct on the p...

5. Irving and D'Cunha v CAC and Brown [2017] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...conclusion as to the disciplinary implications of the facts. Thus the Tribunal cannot find that the vendor was not confused about the boundaries but can find facts as established amount to misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct. Further that this request was made after the sale after the complainants had already purchased the property. Therefore there does not seem to be any logical reason for any agent, even if he was trying to be deceptive, to not pass on the information from the ven...

6. Taurua v Harawira - Te Tii Waitangi A [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 328 (2017 APPEAL 328) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...and deserve close consideration, the jurisdiction to remove a trustee is vested in the Court and no one else. The Marae Charter [15] The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the lower Court’s decision breaches the Marae Charter. The Charter formed a good deal of Mr Tupara’s submissions, and the proposition seemed to be that because the Charter provided for a removal process, the Court should simply recognise that process and make removal orders on the basis that the process...

7. LCRO 218/2018 GB v JV (20 March 2019) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...agreement unconditional could be inferred from the first sentence of his email by taking it out of its surrounding context. [3] Mr GB says his email, properly interpreted, was not an instruction to declare the agreement unconditional, but was a request for advice on what the next step was in the sale and purchase process. He says the next step was for him to complete due diligence so he could satisfy that condition, and then the agreement could be declared unconditional. [4] Mr...

8. [2019] NZEmpC 15 Downer NZ Ltd v Livingstone [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...receiving a predictable sum each month. It is this process which has partially led to the present dispute. [5] When Mr Livingstone left employment on 19 September 2017, Downer calculated his final pay for the broken month. I will deal with the formula it used to calculate this payment shortly. Mr Livingstone did not agree with the basis of calculation for several reasons and commenced a wage arrears claim before the Authority. The determination of the Authority found in favour o...

9. [2019] NZEmpC 16 Moody v Chamberlain [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...been pleaded to) refers to Marita as “intellectually disabled”. It also alleges that Marita has no mental capacity to fulfil employment obligations and refers to an individual support plan. It remains a matter of conjecture, based on the information currently before the Court, as to whether “high needs” equates to incapacity as defined in r 4.29. While it may do, it is a leap of logic I am not prepared to make, particularly having regard to the consequences of the order bei...

10. Family Court Rewrite Submission - Portia Law [pdf, 443 KB]

    ...strands is apt. And each strand needs to be strong to support the connecting strands. 1 Based on data released to Portia from the Ministry of Justice under Official Information Act request and as supported by the Payments to Firms data 1 July to 30 June released each year by the Ministry of Justice. Page 2 of 5 3. PROPOSALS FROM THE COMMITTEE Many of the questions raised have been traversed in the...