Search Results

1. Te Runanga o Ngati Hine v Te Runanga a iwi o Ngapuhi [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 89 (2013 APPEAL 89) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...interpretation of the TRAION trust deed. [39] Counsel for TRONH argued that the Court does have jurisdiction by virtue of s 20 of that Act, which along with Schedule 3 of the TRAION trust deed, provides a right of withdrawal for all purposes. In response TRAION and the Crown maintained that while the Court has jurisdiction to address disputes relating to the 2004 Act, it cannot step beyond that legislation to consider the Tūhoronuku proposal or the general question of the mandate t...

2. AM v AN LCRO 69/2013 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...$6,000.3 [5] AO rejected Mr AN’s complaints, 4 [6] AO describes Mr AN’s immigration application as having a lengthy history, with extensions spanning a year or more before AO was instructed. INZ allowed AO a further extension to provide a response. By that stage Mr AN had temporarily left New Zealand, which made it difficult for AO to obtain Mr AN’s further instructions and complete the submission to INZ. Nonetheless AO says it lodged the submission within time, sayin...

3. LCRO 001/2017 AB v AC [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...complaint letter to the Education Council “he was acting as a lawyer in breaching a confidentiality undertaking”. In doing so he had “[compromised] the employment position of [Mrs AB] who put [her] trust in [Mr AC]”. 6 Mr AC’s response [21] Mr AC’s key points in his response are that: (a) neither he nor his firm had acted for Mr and Mrs AB; (b) he did not provide a “binding undertaking, as a solicitor … to Mr or Mrs AB”; (c) his complaint letter of 5...

4. MLC - 2014 June - Review of Te Ture Whenua Act 1993 [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...report since its release. This may be contrasted with the response in earlier generations to reports that led to the reform of Māori land law – the analysis was timely, incisive and often prescient. The absence of scrutiny of the report puts some responsibility back on the Māori Land Court, which deals with the Act on a daily basis, to offer an assessment of the report. In particular, the Court’s key stakeholders, Māori land owners, deserve an in- depth evaluation of the report. C...

5. Adair v ACC [2012] NZACA 8 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...would be reasonable to see him again after an interval. Mean time it would have to be accepted that he is not fit for any heavy work. I would really like to see him and talk to him at length and to give him a chance to show a proper and adequate response to his injury and his disability.”13 [22] Mr Mackenzie said that he was in complete agreement with Mr Liddell’s diagnosis, as the appellant’s history was in keeping with such a tear, but he had a quite different view of the o...

6. Sherard v Devereux and others - Otakanini Māori Reservatio (Haranui Marae) (2016) 140 Taitokerau MB 60 (140 TTK 60) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...these allegations. of Running Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 750 at 753. 140 Taitokerau MB 65 [21] In response, Mr Robertson argues that it is for the trustees to administer the reservation. He contends that it is the trustees who make decisions as to the application of trust funds, and the direction of the renovation project, and there is n...

7. Witehira - Awarua A25 (2008) 128 Whangarei MB 282 (128 WH 282) [pdf, 3.5 MB]

   ...1995 the trustees entered into a tripoltite deed with Tim Kiro as bOlTowel' and the Housing Corporation of New Zealand as lender. The lender was subsequently changed to the Home MOItgage Company. Tim Kiro built a house on the land and was responsible for re-paying the mOltgage debt to the Home MOligage Company. Some time ill about 2003 Tim Kiro got into alTears with his mortgage 128 Whangarei MB 288 payments. His wife, Te Aroha Kiro, explained that the problem was that her hu...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 85 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...challenging a determination by the Employment Relations Authority that there had been a breach of the duty of good faith that was sufficiently serious and sustained so as to significantly undermine bargaining.1 The Authority made that determination in response to an application by the defendant under s 50J(3) of the Act. In particular it held there had been a breach of good faith by the plaintiff because of what was described as refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with...

9. [2021] NZACC 32 - Fisher v ACC (9 February 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...noise-induced hearing loss. He said: The amounts of noise induced hearing loss estimated above are not as great as the total hearing loss on Mr Fisher’s audiometry and this increases the probability that there is another, uncertain cause responsible for most of his hearing loss. This is also supported by the configuration of the audiogram across the mid frequencies where the pattern threshold elevation is not that expected that with noise induced hearing loss even among som...

10. LCRO 47/2017 KD: Review of a prosecutorial decision (30 June 2017) [pdf, 180 KB]

    ...right to withhold the materials Dr WS had requested pursuant to rule 4.4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules). Mr KD’s reply [23] Mr KD did not accept Dr WS’ criticisms and accepted no responsibility for CBL having paid $50,000 by mistake. Mr KD says he did not know, nor should he have known or suspected, that CBL had paid the money in error. He denied any dishonesty or negligence, gross or otherwise. Mr KD says Dr WS...