Search Results

1. Ngatai - Tokata B8 Trustees (2015) 50 Tairawhiti MB 175 (50 TRW 175) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...measure. [25] Mr Webb submitted that this application is merely an attempt to seek the Court’s intervention in the running of this Trust. He submitted that the obligations and duties of trustees are well known and that it is the trustees that are responsible for the management and governance of the Trust. He cited Rangihuna & Evans v Te Rimu Trustees (2010) where I noted that it is not for the owners or the Māori Land Court to micro-manage the affairs of a Trust. Mr Webb...

2. Māori Trustee - Mohinui Topu (2011) 21 Taitokerau MB 4 (21 TTK 4) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...ss 215 and 219 I constitute the Mohinui Topu Ahu Whenua Trust in respect of the Mohinui Topu block in the terms set out in Annexure A. [29] Pursuant to ss 220 and 222 I appoint Sumatra McGee, Ngaio McGee, Isobel Karaitiana and William Davis as responsible trustees and vest Mohinui Topu in them as responsible trustees. 21 Taitokerau MB 10 [30] Pursuant to s 195 the Māori Trustee’s appointment dated 18 March 2010 is terminated and the Māori Trustee is directed to transfer any...

3. Elder v CAC 10062 & Barker [2013] NZREADT 71 [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...appellant's solicitor confirmed the purchase contract as unconditional on 31 March 2010. 3 [14] There was a "misleading" (as described by the Committee’s decision of 9 December 2011) 6 May 2010 fax from the vendor's solicitor in response to the 5 May 2010 appellant letter seeking clarification of the ownership status of AU 03. That letter included: “So here are my queries and comments, as I understand the situation, for correction if necessary. (1...

4. CAC10063 v Raj [2013] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...$11,995.42. Mark Dalangin 4.30 In relation to Mark Dalangin, it is not accepted that Dalangin paid $3,000 to the defendant. No money was ever given to the defendant. It was given to Prabhkar Kudumula and his associates. 4.31 The defendant accepts no responsibility for any local application, and states there was an introduction only and the remaining dealings were with other identified principal parties. 4 4.32 In relation to the remaining $70,000 compensation sought by...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 39 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...opportunity to cross-examine the defendant’s witnesses. The challenge must be determined on the uncontested evidence before the Court. I proceed on that basis. [17] The company designs and manufactures alarm, access control, medical emergency response and alarm accessory products for both the New Zealand market and a number of export markets. It is a relatively small company, which is sensitive to fluctuations in demand for its products. From around the middle of 2013 the...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2011] NZLCDT 36 [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...for stay or strike out was filed by the Standards Committee on 4 March 2011, an additional memorandum with casebook and materials was filed by Mr King in support of the application in so far as it related to Charge 3 on 30 September 2011 and a response was provided by the Standards Committee on 4 October 2011. Further submissions were also made by the Standards Committee in their opening submissions dated 25 November 2011. Each counsel had the opportunity of addressing the Tribuna...

7. Song v CAC 20008 & Clement [2014] NZREADT 54 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...signing the sale and purchase agreement. [33] The Complainant submits that the Licensee only informed him about the title issue after he had signed the sale and purchase agreement and that was by a Monday 22 April 2013 email. 7 [34] In response, the Licensee has claimed that she had visited the Complainant and his wife prior to them making an offer and had explained to them that a new title would be issued and that they should consult a lawyer on the issue. She also says that...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 85 Agus Riyanto & 43 others v Dong Nam Company Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...only to the plaintiffs’ legal representatives, and they may provide them to Mr Field. They may also be disclosed to such other persons as the Court may approve; any application in that regard is to be made on two days’ notice, with a right of response two days thereafter. The documents may not be disclosed by those persons to any other person without leave of the Court. If one or more of the documents are produced in evidence, the parties should attempt to agree whether non-p...

9. EA v BO LCRO 237 / 2010 (29 September 2011) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...doubt.” Whilst the cases referred to in that decision involve circumstances where the lawyer occupied overlapping roles in relation to the complainant, there is no reason why those principles should not apply to the current position. [43] The natural response of the recipient of the correspondence from Mr EA would be to treat the complaint, and the matters raised in it, with some concern, particularly when legal challenges to the processes of the recipient were raised. It may be th...

10. Denbighshire v Galashiels LCRO 218 / 2009 (26 February 2010) [pdf, 93 KB]

    ...[14] Mr Denbighshire provided voluminous information in respect of the earlier review. I observe that I have had particular regard to the following materials: [a] minutes of the ADLS Complaints Committee 2 of 14 October 2008; [b] the emailed responses of Mr Denbighshire to the investigator in the matter of 20 April 2009, 8 May 2009 and 29 May 2009; [c] submissions of Mr Denbighshire to the Standards Committee (by email) dated 14 August 2009; 5 [d] Letter of Mr XX to the S...