Search Results

1. Mohinui 3B2B (2011) 27 Taitokerau MB 136 (18 TTK 6) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Sections 19 and 328, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Mohinui 3B2B BETWEEN STEPHEN TAUTARI SOPHIE HOKIMATE MAHANGA Applicants Hearing: 19 January 2011 3 February 2011 (Heard at Kaikohe and Whangarei) Judgment: 16 March 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Introduction [1] There are two applications before the Court for occupation orders pursuant to s 328 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (―the Act‖). Stephen Tautari seek...

2. Deputy Registrar - Ohawini A6 (2011) 21 Taitokerau MB 172 (21 TTK 172) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...A20100009225 UNDER Sections 131 and 133, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ohawini A6 BETWEEN DEPUTY REGISTRAR Applicant Hearing: 24 August 2010 13 December 2010 13 April 2011 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 26 May 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Background [1] Haora Areka is recorded as the registered proprietor of Ohawini A6 (CFR NA 16A/908), a 1442m² section that fronts Whangaruru Harbour. The land is General...

3. AB v WA & Ors LCRO 68/2015 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...LCRO on review [20] The role of the LCRO on review is to reach his own view of the evidence before him. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason.1 Submissions at hearing [21] At hearing, Mr and Mrs AB submitted that: (a) There was no evidence in the Committee decision that the Committee members had properly investig...

4. TB v KP LCRO 174/2016 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [25] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:8 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

5. Faulkner v Hoete - Motiti North C No 1 (2018) 173 Waikato Maniapoto MB 2 (173 WMN 2) [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...Applicant AND GRAHAM HOETE AND AUBREY HOETE Respondents Hearing: 16 August 2018, 167 Waikato Maniapoto MB 87-93 (Teleconference) (Heard at Hamilton) Appearances: M Sharp for Applicant K Feint for Respondents Judgment: 11 December 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S R CLARK Copies to: M Sharp, P O Box 5111, Mount Maunganui michael@michaelsharp.co.nz K Feint, Thorndon Chambers, P O Box 1530 Wellingt...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 68 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...be given to fairness in the Court’s exercise of judgment will differ according to the circumstances including the character of the privilege it is said has been waived which, as in this case it is litigation privilege. [39] To my mind the judgments in Ophthalmological Soc and Shannon indicate where the boundaries of s 65(3)(a) lie. While the former espouses a test based on the Court’s objective judgment as to the consistency of the claimant’s conduct with maintaining the pr...

7. S v L [2017] NZIACDT 3 (4 April 2017) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...complainant’s attempt to mislead when he obtained his residence visa. They were correct to view the matter in that way. [26] I have accepted as a fact that the adviser did identify the 24 month issue, and I am also satisfied that he correctly made the judgement that the 24 month issue was not the significant obstacle to the applicant’s objectives. He identified the real objective to the applicant was the attempt to mislead. It necessarily follows that he was not negligent;...

8. Griffiths v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) & Burnett [2017] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...from Mr Nuttal but in these circumstances should have made an effort to have advised the purchaser of the fact that the asset register was known to be incomplete. This is a breach of R6.4. We deal with the consequence of this finding later in our judgment. Drafting the restraint of trade clause [19] Mr Bowie’s initial offer included a restraint of trade clause for one year. Mr Burnett drafted a later offer which had a three year restraint. Mr Griffiths legitimately asked why th...

9. INZ (Calder) v Horan [2019] NZIACDT 23 (23 April 2019) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand [2012] NZHC 3354 at [44]–[51] and Katamat v Professional Conduct Committee [2012] NZHC 1633, [2013] NZAR 320 at [49]. 7 [22] The communications cast doubt on Mr Horan’s judgement as to how best to represent his clients’ interests. He does not understand that it cannot possibly be in the interests of his clients to make such gratuitous personal attacks on the very immigration officers from whom his client...

10. LCRO 19/2024 MT v DB (31 January 2025) [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [19] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:2 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determi...