2882 items matching your search terms
T E U R E W E R A P A R T I I I Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 2 W A I 8 9 4 T E U R E W E R A P r e - p u b l i c a t i o n P a r t I I I From self-governing native res
...evidence ............................................................................................ 17 The law .................................................................................................... 19 Background to charges – the three judgments ......................................... 22 Charge 1 and in the alternative charge 2 – complaint to Judicial Conduct Commissioner re Justice Harrison ............................................. 28 The correspond...
GE.08-40566 (E) 010908 UNITED NATIONS CCPR International covenant on civil and political rights Distr. GENERAL CCPR/C/NZL/5 18 February 2008 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT Fifth periodic reports of States parties NEW ZEALAND∗ [24 December 2007] ∗ In accordance with the information transmitted to States
Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to Section 223 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Report of the LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER For the 12 months ended 30 June 2011 Annual Report 2011 | Legal Complaints Review Officer 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ___________________________________________________________________________________________ LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICE Overview of the year 2009/2010 ........................................
...recommended to the court as representative viewing points for our site visits. However, the significance or otherwise of those viewpoints and the scale of impact that development of the Site would have from them are matters of subjective opinion. Our judgments on this, insofar as they differ from the opinions of particular experts, do not reflect any criticism of those opinions. We find all opinions generally sound, although we have reached some evaluative findings about them.
170 Waikato Maniapoto MB 123 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20130007632 A20150001249 UNDER Sections 237, 238 and 239, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Waiwhakaata 3E4C Lot 2A BETWEEN TAMATAI TATA, ANNETTE TATA, ALVY TATA-HOHEPA, NATHAN WHANGA, RODNEY WHANGA AND LISA KIRI AS TRUSTEES OF HIIONA MARAE Applicants AND RENE DAWN KATIPA, RODNEY WHANGA, BOYD KATIPA, NGAITU KARA, ALBERT
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2023] NZLCRO 028 Ref: LCRO 146/2022 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN RK Applicant AND ZW Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction [1] Mr RK has applie
510 Aotea MB 97 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District AP-20240000007694 WĀHANGA Under Section 135, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Lots 3 and 5 Deposited Plan 20707 NĀ By ROUND COURNER LIMITED Te kaitono Applicant AP-20230000022703 WĀHANGA Under Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the
...the High Court appeal. [3] By Decision issued on 6th August, Gordon J2 issued a decision allowing the appeal in part on the first alleged error law (Issues 1 and 3) and the second and fifth alleged errors of law (paragraph 262 of the High Court Judgment sets these out in more detail). They were (paraphrased): i) The Environment Court failed to take into account and properly apply mandatory considerations under the RMA by: (a) Failing to give effect to Policy 13 and Policy 15 of th...
Evaluation of the Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Case Studies Prepared by the Crime and Justice Research Centre Victoria University of Wellington May 2005 2 DISCLAIMER This research was commissioned by the former Department for Courts. The report has been prepared by the authors and the views expressed in it are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the