Search Results

1. Hiroki v Hiroki - Tikitiki B13C1A (2011) 17 Tairawhiti MB 54 (17 TRW 54) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...interfering with Joseph’s occupation on Tikitiki B13C1B – Taurapa; 17 Tairawhiti MB 60 Other members of the whānau contributed money for the bach which went into the whānau bank account; Other whānau members contributed in human resource terms to the erection of the building, for example Joseph Hiroki; The applicant fails to accept that the building has been erected on the wrong block, Tikitiki B13C1B – Taurapa. [18] At the first hearing of the application, th...

2. Te Pairi v Whakatane District Council - Tahora 2AD2 and Omuriwaka (2011) 33 Waiariki MB 48 (33 WAR 48) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...land, to be Council road reserve. 3. The movement of the boundaries is substantially more than the estimated accuracy of 1 metre. In fact [they] have moved apparently at least 50 metres. 4. The Council‟s intention to use Section 330 of the Resource Management Act 1991 Emergency Powers is without grounds; as there is no critical need for a new road formation, nor are there likely to be any adverse effects on the environment which requires immediately preventative or remedial...

3. CAC10017 v Xu [2013] NZREADT 16 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Thompson. The listing price for the property was $650,000. The licensee was provided with concept drawings for the development and advised that if the property was sold at the listing price 3 Northcorp would obtain the necessary building and resource consents to enable the new purchaser to proceed with the development. Later the same day, 24 August 2007, the licensee presented an offer from Tauroa to Northcorp to purchase the property for $650,000. In doing so, the licensee did...

4. Strike-Out Application Adams v REAA CAC 20009 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...of parties concerned: “The vendors, proposed copyrighted, architectural plans ...” (The vendors were the registered proprietors, Mr Adams and Mr Rodriguez who appears to be a co-trustee) “The building consent plans, the copyright, and the Resource Consent legally belonged to myself ...” “Grant Adams did not assign any rights to Yan Yu to on sell the copyright plans ...” “There is no clause allowing Barfoot & Thompson to offer for sale the copyrighted material of...

5. Nairn v Peebles LCRO 109 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...carrying out a due diligence investigation of the property including (but not limited to) an investigation of the following: 1. The Certificate of Title; 2. any leases or other rights to occupy grounds in respect of the property; 3. the Planning and Resource Management requirements and constraints affecting the property, including zone, reticulation of services and roading, etc. [23] It may be argued that the enquiry about the identified title ought to have raised a question in t...

6. Shropshire v March LCRO 64 / 2010 (28 October 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...the matter was an example of her failure to demonstrate professionalism. The Applicant questioned whether the Practitioner was using the legal process for a proper purpose. An underlying implication is that the proceeding was a waste of legal resources, and unnecessary use of the court system. 5 [16] The professional obligations of a lawyer are to promote and protect the interest of their client. There is no general professional duty on a lawyer towards a third party wh...

7. Homes v ACC [2014] NZACA 14 [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...where, “for any ... reason”, there is a question which ought to be submitted to the High Court, including by reason of its general or public importance. [23] In exercising its discretion, the Authority is mindful of the proper use of the scarce resources of the High Court. Leave is not given as a matter of course; O’Neill at [25]. [24] Such an applicant seeks an indulgence, so the onus rests on him or her to satisfy the Authority that, in all the circumstances, the interests o...

8. LCRO 1/2016 87/2016 and 88/2016 GV v Standards Committee [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...provisions for the Court of Appeal”. The LCDT proceedings [21] In a letter to this Office dated 12 June 2017, the Committee denies bias on behalf of its members and it is difficult to reach the view that a Committee would expend time and resources investigating complaints against Ms GV merely because it had been “unsuccessful” in previous proceedings against her. [22] The Complaints Service points out that Ms GV has not referred to any direct evidence to support her alle...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...and 10 May 2016 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Marx, plaintiff in person R Scott, counsel for defendant Judgment: 10 June 2016 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS Introduction [1] Mrs Marx was employed as a Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour with the Southern Cross Campus in 2012. She was suspended on 29 January 2013 and later dismissed by way of letter dated 7 May 2013. Mrs Marx filed a claim in the Employment Relations Authority, all...

10. Borst v ACC [2012] NZACA 3 [pdf, 46 KB]

    ...Cadenhead DCJ at paragraphs [23] – [40], and approved by the Authority in Langhorne v ACC [2010] NZACA 2. See also Judge Cadenhead’s comment in Saipe v ACC (Decision No 21/2008), concerning the relevance of ensuring a proper use of scarce judicial resources. Background to the Section 114 Assessment Appeal [5] On 26 May 1976 the appellant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident; he was an earner and for a period he received earnings related compensation (ERC), returnin...