Search Results

1. Piahana v Makea - Estate of Philip Makua Makea [2016] Chief Judges MB 977 (2016 CJ 977) [pdf, 345 KB]

   2016 Chief Judge’s MB 977 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU REGISTRY A20100012814 CJ 2010/72 UNDER Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Estate of Philip Makua Makea BETWEEN KENI PARATA PIAHANA ON BEHALF OF EMARAINA HINEORA MAKEA AND THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK PORI MAKEA Applicants AND IRA ADA MAKEA Respondent Hearing: 7 July 2015, 2015 Chief Judge's MB 460-561 10 December 2015,...

2. Dickinson - Succession to Paurini Paengahuru [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1267 [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District AP-20230000019685 A20190002306 CJ 2019/2 WĀHANGA Under Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Succession to Paurini Paengahuru NĀ By ESTRELITA KAHIKATEA DICKINSON AND JULIANA TARAIPINE SMALLMAN Ngā Kaitono Applicants Nohoanga: Hearing 18 December 2024, 2025 Chief Judge’s MB 438-454 24 Septe...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 007 Aitchison v Walmsley [pdf, 474 KB]

   ...judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, where counsel have failed to direct the Court's attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled. [11] I observe that the exceptions identified by Wild CJ apply in circumstances where a judgment has not been perfected. I record my understanding that in this case the judgment contained...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 21 A Labour Inspector v NewZealand Fusion International Ltd [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...reaching a concluded view on the merits of the application for a rehearing, because to do so would be premature, I conclude that the relative merits of the application for a rehearing appear (at this stage at least) to be weak. [14] Weighing all matters before me (including the interests of the parties and the three employees), I am not satisfied that it is in the overall interests of justice that a stay of execution be granted, and I decline to do so. The application is dismissed...

5. FX & QX v MC Ltd [2022] NZDT 154 (22 September 2022) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...possession on or about June 2009. 4. FX and QX did not make payment of $90,142.62 to MC2 Ltd for additional work in relation to earthworks, retaining walls and foundations to meet engineering and Council design standards. MC2 Ltd referred this matter to the Building Disputes Tribunal (NZ) Ltd for Arbitration. In a Determination dated 9 October 2009, the Arbitrator dismissed MC2 Ltd’s claim for payment of all but $15,723.99 which FX and QX were ordered to pay. 5. There were issue...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 13 People Media Group Ltd v Galligan [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...determination of the Authority does not function as a stay of execution of the determination. The Court has the power to order a stay but must first be satisfied that to do so would be in line with the overarching consideration of the interests of justice. [7] A number of well-established factors are to be considered such as: (a) whether the challenge will be rendered ineffectual if the stay is not granted; (b) whether the challenge is brought and pursued in good faith; (c) wh...

7. N Ltd v MX [2023] NZDT 387 (5 July 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...getting funds from an inheritance in [country]. LN therefore discussed her concerns with the solicitors for MX and the purchaser. LN stated it is not the role of the agent to make enquiries into the financial resources of the purchaser or to take that matter further. 16. MX has not put forward any evidence N Ltd breached their obligations under the Agency Agreement. The matter has also been reviewed by the REA however no disciplinary issues were found. 17. MX has further submitt...

8. Randle v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs on Appeal) [2024] NZACC 181 (14 November 2024) [pdf, 245 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 181 ACAR 100/23 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN WILLIAM RANDLE Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: On the papers Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented J Cole for the Respondent Judgment: 14 November 2024 _________________________...

9. UE v TF & KD [2024] NZDT 652 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...in [City 1]. She was advised that the engine was not economical to repair and that a new one needed to be purchased and installed. 2. UE filed a claim against TF seeking damages in the sum of $23,000 which is the cost of a new engine. 3. The matter was first heard on 25 June 2024 before DTR Wilson. Partway through the hearing, a report was mentioned that was supplied by KD to UE which allegedly contained incorrect information. The matter was adjourned to give UE the opportunity to a...

10. DN v MH & WH [2024] NZDT 664 (8 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...