Search Results

1. Pou - The Petuere me Hemo Wharemate Whānau Trust [2018] Chief Judge's MB 626 (2018 CJ 626) [pdf, 316 KB]

   ...order was made or through submissions on the law. Issues [9] The issues to determine in this case are:- 1 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 632 (1) whether Petuere Rauriki or Raurihi and Petuere Rauriki Tuhiwai Wharemata are the same people, and if not (2) whether there was a mistake in the presentation of the facts to the Court,...

2. Tamihana - Ngaiotonga (B) (2008) 121 Whangarei MB 241 (121 WH 241) [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...previously been rebuffed in atly effort to use or develop the land or that he has even approached his co-owners about his ideas for the land. The pat-tition is not for the purpose of resolving an intractable dispute amongst owners. It does not appeal' that the owners have met to consider the use of the land for many years. Mr Tamihana 's application has more or less come out of the blue. [1 8] It is also significant that this land has a relatively natTOW area of coastal fi...

3. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...relationship. 1 Daniels v Complaints Assessment Committee 2 of the Wellington District Law Society [2011] 3 NZLR 850. 4 [12] Mr Hodge referred us to a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Law Society of New South Wales v McNamara.2 In that matter the Court held that the attempt to deceive the Law Society was serious enough, but the attempt to deceive the Statutory Committee (the equivalent of the Tribunal) was eve...

4. Myhre - Ngapaeruru No 1B No 2C No 2 (2019) 73 Tākitimu MB 176 (73 TKT 176) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...custodian trustee. (5) For every trust constituted under this Part the court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [18] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal considered the nature of the Court’s discretion to appoint trustees under s 222 of the Act:5 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowle...

5. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...therefore lead to detriment to the client. Understandably Mr Q was of the view that Lawyer I held such information. Lawyer I took the opposite view. The question of what kind of information might be relevant was 4 considered by the Court of Appeal in Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation [1998] 3 NZLR 641. In that case the Court rejected an argument at general information about the manner in which business was conducted was relevant to the new matter....

6. 2023-10-13-Notice-of-motion.pdf [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...were received, of which 5 were partially or fully in support and 41 were opposed. The number and nature of the submissions received indicates that the Application is contentious. Any decision by the Council in the first instance would likely be appealed to the Environment Court. (f) It would be more efficient in terms of cost and time for all parties and interested persons for the Application to be heard and determined by the Environment Court instead of Council. (g) The Appli...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 3 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa O Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Supreme Court noted in Almond v Read that the merits will not generally be relevant where there has been an insignificant delay as a result of a legal adviser’s error and the proposed respondents have suffered no prejudice (beyond the fact of an appeal).10 The qualifier “generally” was used as it was accepted there were circumstances where the lack of merit is so obvious that the Court is justified in refusing to extend time.11 The question then is whether there is that obvi...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 213 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS v QLDC – TOPIC 22 – DETERMINATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 213 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN CONEBURN PRESERVE HOLDINGS LIMITED & OTHERS (ENV-2018-CHC-137) Appellants AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Env...

9. Tan v New Zealand Police (costs) [2017] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...of Police (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31. [6.8.4] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. DISCUSSION [11] In our view the Police correctly submit Ms Tan’s conduct of the case needlessly added to the difficulty and cost of the proceedings....

10. Williamson v Tangilanu [2012] NZIACDT 18 (8 May 2012) [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...either publication, or non-publication of decisions. However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [41] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: “[T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the r...