Search Results

1. Hamilton v Trustees of Erepeti Marae - Tuahu 3X (2009) 128 Wairoa MB 77 (128 WR 77) [pdf, 931 KB]

   ...Regulations 1994 Hearing: IN THE MATTER OF Tuahu 3X BETWEEN HIRO HAMILTON Applicant AND 30 April 2008 (Heard at Wairoa) THE TRUSTEES OF EREPETI MARAE Defendant Appearances: Mr B Tupara for the Applicant Mr Harman for the Respondent Judgment: 21 April 2009 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C L FOX Introduction [1] Mr Hiro Hamilton, the applicant in this case is a leader and a rangatira. He is steeped in te reo Maori me ona tikanga, whakapapa, local history, local land blocks...

2. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – concluding observations 18th-20th reports [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Supreme Court’s reliance on the Declaration in construing the scope of Mãori rights to freshwater and geothermal resources in the case between the New Zealand Mãori Council et al and the Attorney General et al SC 98/2012, [2013] NZSC 6, whose judgement was delivered on 27 February 2013. 4. The Committee welcomes the numerous valuable programmes, strategies and other initiatives aimed at improving ethnic relations and raising the awareness of the population with regard to racial...

3. Akura Lands Trust v Te Whata – Akura 1C 3B 2 (2014) 29 Takitimu MB 199 (29 TTK 199) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...dated 4 October 2013 (Heard at Masterton 29 Tākitimu MB 106-121 dated 6 December 2013 (Heard at Masterton) Appearances: Gail Marshall, Ronald Karaitiana for the applicant trustees. Manu Te Whata, Kena Te Whata for the respondents. Judgment: 05 March 2014 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF JUDGE M J DOOGAN 29 Takitimu MB 200 Introduction [1] The Akura 1C3B2 block is vested in the trustees of the Akura Lands Trust...

4. Strike-Out Application Adams v REAA CAC 20009 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the Court by which it was made.” Res Judicata 7. The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of res judicata in Shiels v Blakeley [1986] 2 NZLR 262, Somers J, giving judgment for the Court, said at p.266, line 24: “... that where a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a New Zealand judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, the litigation, an...

5. LCRO 115/2017 BV v RD and KR [pdf, 115 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. [16] 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 determinati...

6. BORA Major Events Management Bill [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...Economic Development Footnotes 1 R v Keegstra [1990] 3 SCR 697,729,826. 2 Irwin Toy Ltd v A-G (Quebec) (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 577 (SCC). 3 RJR-MacDonald Ltd v Attorney General of Canada (1995) 127 DLR (4th) 1; see on this point the dissenting judgment of La Forest J. 4 Richard Claydon & Hugh Tomlinson The Law of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000), Vol.1, 15.171 – 15.176 5 RJR MacDonald v Attorney-General of Canada (1995) 127 DLR (4th)1 In addition to th...

7. LCRO 8/2014 HTO v AG [pdf, 216 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. [26] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

8. [2021] NZEnvC 135 Caradoc-Davies v Clearwater [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...first decision was made by consent of the parties therefore claiming costs as part of this process is unreasonable and inappropriate; (d) there is no substantive decision on the legality of the Respondent’s actions in the third decision22 and no judgment of the Court regarding the legality of the QRP; (e) they did not fail to provide a digital terrain model in accordance with the Court’s direction. The Court’s decision required Patterson Pitts to provide documentation. Thi...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 075 Gray v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...non-notified basis, and it was because of the implications of the policy interpretation noted above that the Council originally felt obligated to elect that the decision at Council level be made by a three member hearing panel; (f) the court’s judgment has now assisted Council and the community with understanding the parameters within which a landowner may seek to rely on Policy 16.2.1.7.Y (clause 10.7(b) Practice Note 2023); 6 NOE p 83, line 26. 6 (g) through this appea...

10. Briefing-Election-Access-Fund-Statutory-evaluation-after-the-first-use-of-the-Fund-Final-Redacted.pdf [pdf, 2.2 MB]

    ...A known limitation of the evaluation, however, has been that the Fund has only been used for one election and no by-elections. This means that there is only a small number of applicants to the Fund (four people) to date. This limited the evaluative judgements that could be made. The evaluators have suggested that a further evaluation assessing the Fund after several election cycles would be beneficial. The Fund and Act should be given time to be used at several more elections We recomm...