Search Results

1. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2010) 10 Taitokerau MB 94 (10 TTK 94) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...right to nominate one trustee to the overarching ahu whenua trust and those two trustees would then nominate a third trustee. Mr Jefferies and Mr Wilson were then to assist the trustees to prepare a land management plan. 10 Taitokerau MB 101 [28] Notwithstanding the meritorious aims of the amended application, it faces several hurdles. [29] First, the amended application presupposes that the original application was to partition and occupy both Karaka Huarua A and B. Bu...

2. Manning - Kirikiri Pawhaoa B2A1 (2010) 5 Taitokerau MB 234 (5 TTK 234) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...Court intended to permit the trustees to breach the Act. Sections 64 and 64A of the Trustee Act 1956 do not permit variations to trusts that breach a statute. In any event, the Trustee Act 1956 must be read subject to Part 4 of the Act as per s 101: 5 Taitokerau MB 244 All other enactments and rules of law relating to— (a) Applications for and grant of administration of estates of deceased persons; and (b) The administration of such estates; and (c) The bringing...

3. Diamondaras v Rice - Rangiuru Part No 2A Roadway (2017) 159 Waiariki MB 94 (159 WAR 94) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...improvement to be effected by the Tauranga City Council makes payment of compensation unwarranted. 10 Rice – Part Rangiuru No 2A Roadway (2014) 107 Waiariki MB 148 (107 WAR 148). 159 Waiariki MB 101 [6] The formed part of the road was set apart as a public road by gazette notice on 14 September 1989. Pursuant to section 421 of the Māori Affairs Act 1953….this Proclamation declaring the land described in the Schedule...

4. INZ (Foley) v Rodriguez [2019] NZIACDT 51 (23 July 2019) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 6 Section 50. 7 Section 51(1). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 8 [41] There are no submissions from the complainant. [42] Ms Farrow, on behalf of Ms Rodriguez has filed a statement of reply, dated 8 November 2017, together with her submissions to the Authority of 25 Septembe...

5. [2023] NZIACDT 28 – YI v MM (8 November 2023) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 6 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s 50. 7 Section 51(1). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] and [151]. 9 At [97], [101]–[102] and [112]. 8 ASSESSMENT [34] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due...

6. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust [2014] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...time of the criminal trial. 4 [9.4] The orders would enable the proceedings to be heard, determined, or otherwise dealt with fairly, efficiently, simply, and speedily. [10] In a supporting memorandum it is submitted for the SSGT that: [10.1] The preliminary questions go “directly to the heart of this proceeding”. A finding of “no” for either issue would dispose of the causes of action based on information privacy Principles 8 and 11 in that there can be no interference...

7. Flight v Fletcher - Waipapa 1D 2B 3B [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 96 (2017 APPEAL 96) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...general appeal and an appeal 8 May v May (1982) 1 NZFLR 165 at 170, as cited in Harris v McIntosh [2001] 3 NZLR 721 at [13]. 9 Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 at [32]. 2017 Maori Appellate Court MB 101 from a discretion is not altogether easy to describe in the abstract. But the fact that the case involves factual evaluation and a value judgment does not of itself mean the decision is discretionary. In any event, as the Cour...

8. LCRO 180/2018 & 186/2018 KM on behalf of XYZ Trust v DF (5 May 2020) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...$4,500. [99] This amount would be further reduced by the fact that it cannot be said with any certainty that the further statement of claim was a ‘waste of time’. [100] These comments may help to put the issue into perspective for Mr KM. [101] The determination of the Committee to take no further action with regard to this complaint, is confirmed. Orders [102] The Standards Committee imposed a fine of $2,000 and ordered Mr DF to pay costs in the sum of $1,000....

9. [2017] NZEnvC 134 Bay of Plenty Regional Council v Vision Charitable Trust [pdf, 515 KB]

   ...following decisions where a SUbstantial proportion of an applicant's costs were awarded: Section 285 RMA. 2 Foodstuffs (Otago Southland) Properties Ltd v Dunedin City Council [1996] NZRMA 385. 3 Tasman District Council v Douglas, [2010] NZEnvC 101 at paragraphs [11] and [17]; see also Hele Harvest Ltd v Marlborough District Council (unreported); HC Wellington, CIV-2004-485-1669, 24 February 2005, Wild J. 4 (a) Auckland Council v Lau,4 where the respondents were ordered to pa...

10. Kartikeya v Fernyhough [2014] NZIACDT 44 (03 April 2014) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...to initiate a professional relationship in accordance with the Code of Conduct. [9.2] Did not set fair and reasonable fees. [9.3] Failed to provide an invoice. [10] The adviser’s response to the original Statement of Complaint was that he: [10.1] Had never met the complainant, never received money from her or done any work relating to her. [10.2] Explained why the papers supporting the complaint were not consistent with him being involved in the client relationship. [10.3] Said...