8020 items matching your search terms
...Respondents’ property when she comes to visit, and an agreement is reached on this) they are free to do so. If they do not, this order stands as an enforceable order of the Tribunal. [12] As to the Respondents’ counterclaim, I do not find the matter is frivolous or vexatious and the matter is dismissed due to failure of proof.
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZREADT 47 READT 002/14 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN MARK AND SHEYENNE FOLDSZIN Appellants AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20008) First respondent LEANNE LEEF Second respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Ms N Dangen - Member Ms C Sandelin - Member HEARD ON THE PAPERS DATE OF THIS DECIS...
...intimidatory, and have put the retention of WT Nicholls Estate lands at risk. To that end, I directed that the Court facilitate a meeting of owners to consider the ongoing administration of the land by the whanau. These factors go to the overall justice of granting an award of costs to the respondents. [12] In these circumstances, I have no doubt that an award of costs would only further inflame what is already an unfortunate dispute between whanaunga as to the proper occupation and...
...of the interpretation or implementation of the Deed of Settlement or the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Act. 5. Legislative determination ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. [2] However, to the extent any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 15 constitutes a justified limit under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act on the right affirmed by s 27(2). Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of...
...respect of the interpretation or implementation of the Deed of Settlement or the Hineuru Claims Settlement Act. 5. Legislative determination ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. [2] However, to the extent any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 15 constitutes a justified limit under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act on the right affirmed by s 27(2). Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlem...
...Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective settlement deed, the Bill or the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Settlement Bill. 5. Legislative determinations ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. [1] However to the extent any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 15 constitutes a justified limit under s 5 of the right affirmed by s 27(2). Excluding subsequent challenges is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims. To the extent exc...
...conclude, however, that that limitation is justifiable in terms of s 5 BORA: [2] 8.1 The settlement Bill reflects a reciprocal agreement between two parties. In return for the compensation under the settlement, the Affiliate has agreed that the subject matter of its historical claims should not be the subject of further litigation. The Crown is satisfied there was the appropriate mandate to enter into such an agreement. (See explanatory note pages 3-4.) This assessment is also consiste...
...Customary Rights and Customary Rights Orders 9. Section 27(2) has been held to apply to a determination by a Tribunal or public authority that is adjudicative in nature [1]. A negotiated settlement between two parties is not an adjudication of the matters in dispute. Nor can it be said the Crown is a tribunal or public authority. It follows that s 27(2) is not engaged. Section 19 – Freedom From Discrimination 10. Section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 concerns the ri...
...respect of the interpretation and implementation of the deed of settlement or the Act. 5. Legislative determination of a claim would not conventionally fall within the scope of judicial review.[3] However, to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 14 constitutes a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims.
...the interpretation or implementation of the Deed of Settlement or the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Act. 5. Legislative determination ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. [2] However, to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 14 constitutes a justified limit under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act on the right affirmed by s 27(2). Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of...