Search Results

1. Deputy Registrar - Te Keti A2 (2011) 15 Taitokerau MB 76 (15 TTK 76) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...15 Taitokerau MB 76 (15 TTK 76) A20060024640 UNDER Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Keti A2 BETWEEN DEPUTY REGISTRAR Applicant Hearing: 23 January 2007 (Heard at Auckland) Judgment: 21 January 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Introduction [1] The Māori Freehold Land Registration Project (“the Project”) has revealed various anomalies in the Court‟s title record. The present application under...

2. LCRO 001/2017 AB v AC [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Although Mr AC’s communications were sent by him on his firm’s notepaper or letterhead from his professional address, “this did not necessarily mean that he had acted in his capacity as a [lawyer]”, but showed that he had “made an error of judgement in his use of firm letterhead for private correspondence”. (f) “[I]t …appeared” that Mr AI, an associate at Mr AC’s firm, not Mr AC himself, instructed Mr AF QC to act for Mr and Mrs AC on the matter. (g) It was...

3. LCRO 49/2016 QG v WW (8 May 2018) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...conversation with Mr JR before the Court, I doubt that she was. It is accepted that she could have done and there is no doubt she did not. However, the question of relevance is one for the lawyer concerned and calls for the exercise of professional judgement. The decision Mr JR referred to in his submissions, CLM v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development says that serious procedural impropriety in a without notice application provides a ground for judicial review.3...

4. MacDonald v Wynyard - Manawakore C1 and Manawakore D (2016) 131 Taitokerau MB 149 (131 TTK 149) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Manawakore C1 and Manawakore D BETWEEN IAN MACDONALD Applicant AND MARAEA WYNYARD Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2015 13 May 2016 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 30 May 2016 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG 131 Taitokerau MB 150 Introduction [1] On 18 December 2015, I granted an order per s 240 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act...

5. LCRO 160/2017 EH v FP (23 April 2018) [pdf, 192 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. [34] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

6. Peacocke - Part Puketiti 2B2B 1 [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 48 (2021 APPEAL 48) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...10 February 2021, 2021 Māori Appellate Court MB 27-47 (Heard at Hamilton) Kooti: Court Judge C T Coxhead (Presiding) Judge S F Reeves Judge D H Stone Kanohi kitea: Appearances J Koning for Appellants Whakataunga: Judgment date 26 March 2021 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā TE KOOTI Reserved Judgment of the Court Copies to: J Koning, Commerce Lane Chambers, P O Box 5, Te Puke 3153 2021 Māori Appellate Court MB 49 He...

7. Royal v Waerea - The Mere Royal Whanau Trust (2017) 162 Waiariki MB 117 (162 WAR 117) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...WAEREA Respondent Hearing: 135 Waiariki MB 272-278 dated 3 February 2016 143 Waiariki MB 20-33 dated 8 June 2016 152 Waiariki MB 126-136 dated 4 November 2016 157 Waiariki 149-160 dated 2 February 2017 (Heard at Rotorua) Judgment: 11 May 2017 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD 162 Waiariki MB 118 Introduction [1] The Mere Royal Whānau Trust was created in 1996 on succession to Mere Royal, 1 who is the tupuna of the trust...

8. LCRO 47/2017 KD: Review of a prosecutorial decision (30 June 2017) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...asked to review a decision of this Office in which it had dismissed an application for review of a Standards Committee’s decision to prosecute a practitioner. Fogarty J held the following: 24 The purpose of a review by the LCRO is to form a judgment as to the appropriateness of the charges laid in the prosecutorial exercise of discretion by the Standards Committee. It is as simple as that ... I agree ... that “a review by the LCRO (should be) informal, inquisitorial and robust”...

9. LCRO 272/2015 PA v NT, RO and DS (31 August 2018) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...the Legal Complaints Review Officer (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 judgement for that of the Committee, without good reason. Nature and scope of review [26] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … the power of revie...

10. Hohepa v Cassidy - Waima C30A and Waima Topu B (2018) 182 Taitokerau MB 166 (182 TTK 166) [pdf, 337 KB]

    ...WHĀNAU TRUST Second Respondents Hearing: 4 and 5 December 2017, 167 Taitokerau MB 88-216 (Heard at Whangārei) Appearances: Mrs James, for the Applicant Mr Williams for First Respondents Ms Terei for Second Respondents Judgment: 12 December 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG Copies to: E A James, Brathwaite and Smail Ltd, P O Box 13243, Onehunga, Auckland 1643 erin.james@gmail.com T K Williams, Wackrow, Williams and Davies Ltd...