8020 items matching your search terms
2025 Chief Judge's MB 185 Wilson - Oue 2B 2C and Others (2025) Chief Judge's MB 185 (2025 CJ 185) I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE TAITOKERAU In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Taitokerau District AP-20230000028251 A20150002427 CJ 2015/27 WĀHANGA Under Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Oue 2B 2C and Others NĀ By BEAU WILSON Te Kaitono Applicant Nohoanga:
...correspondence. In this decision the Appointment application is considered first, followed by the Investigation, Removal and Security for costs applications. The issue of costs is dealt with at the end. BACKGROUND Ngati Ruanui and Tangahoe These matters have arisen against the background of ongoing Treaty settlement negotiations between Ngati Ruanui and the Crown. The issues, unresolved or otherwise, as between Ngati Ruanui on the one hand and Tangahoe and Pakakohe on the other have...
...Trustee of the Trust. The Public Trustee was appointed in his place as co-Trustee with Ms PL. Ms PL’s complaints [12] In its first determination, the Standards Committee reserved the right to Ms PL to make further complaints about Mr HM if any matters arose in the course of the High Court proceedings to determine the question of costs incurred in the proceedings issued by Mr HM. [13] The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 29 November 2016. Ms PL’s complaint is dat...
...Grace Hansen. Sections 43, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60 Blk II Shotover SD, Pt Section 47 Blk II Shotover SD, Pt Section 123 and 124 Blk I Shotover SD, Sections 130,131 and 132, Blk I Shotover SD. 4 [8] The appeal also specifies, in its reasons, matters arising from the fact that the Council deferred to later stages of its decision-making on the proposed plan aspects of its submission. In particular, these reasons comment and expand on the following concerns: ... notification of t...
DEBORAH OWEN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 215 [18 November 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 215 ARC 51/14 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DEBORAH OWEN Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant ARC 52/14 AND IN THE MATTER of special leave to remove proceedi...
...$2,500 in costs in the case and submitted that a contribution of $1,000 would be appropriate. Mr Blair concluded that if the Court found it inappropriate to make an award of costs in the plaintiff’s favour it would not be in the interests of justice and policy considerations for future best practice to make an order of costs in favour of the defendant and therefore costs should be allowed to lie where they have fallen. [7] My initial inclination was to adopt the same approach a...
...application for an extension of time. [6] The application is not opposed by the respondent but that, of itself, does not mean that the application should be granted. I must be satisfied on the evidence before me that it is in the interests of justice to do so. [7] The delay in this case was minimal and was the result of an error by counsel rather than tardiness on the part of the applicant. The respondent’s solicitors were sent a copy of the statement of claim by email on 21 May...
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZREADT 86 READT 034/12 IN THE MATTER OF appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN STEPHEN HUNT of Christchurch, Complainant Purchaser Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 10056) First Respondent AND ROSEMARY (ANNIE) SMITH of Rangiora, Real Estate Agent Second Respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr G Denley - Membe...
...determination." 4. Section 27(2) applies to a determination by a tribunal or public authority that is adjudicative in nature, Chisholm v Auckland City Council [2005] NZAR 661. A negotiated settlement between two parties is not an adjudication of the matters in dispute. Nor can it be said that the Crown is a tribunal or other public authority. 5. Clause 13 does limit the ability to bring judicial review. However, even if this is a prima facie breach of s 27(2), it is likely to be ju...
...2 At [3]. 3 High Court Rules, r 31.9. necessary, that jurisdiction extended so far as to reinstating or recalling the proceeding so that this application could be considered. 4 [8] I agree that the interests of justice would not be served if the non-publication order could have an unintended consequence of preventing recovery action to obtain the agreed settlement; at least one aspect of that order only came about because of the settlement now being