Search Results

1. Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (Costs) [2017] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...Tribunal. The facts in Haydock v Gilligan Sheppard HC Auckland CIV2007- 404-2929, 11 September 2008 are illustrative. The Tribunal (as then constituted) awarded costs of $12,500 against the unsuccessful plaintiff (Ms Haydock). On her unsuccessful appeal to the High Court she was ordered to pay a further $7,500. She is recorded at [45] of the decision as stating that her financial position was parlous and that she intended declaring herself bankrupt. A case of public importance [10]...

2. MacDonald - Oraka 4A2 (2006) 111 Wairoa MB 32 (111 WR 32) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Act 1993. These reflect the primary objectives ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 which is the retention, use and development of Maori land by its owners, their whanau and hapu. [15] In Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc (1997) 641, 649-651, the Court of Appeal considered the application of the preamble, sections 2 & 17 to change of status application. The Court stated: TJ1t~ Mi'inri T.nnd f'n1Jrt v't:t>rr:ls:p.s its nnwers and resvonsibilities in relation to avvlicatio...

3. Pritchard - Rangitatau Waitotara 3F1 and 3A (2020) 421 Aotea MB 140 (421 AOT 140) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...notice, opportunity for discussion and support have been, unsurprisingly, before this, the Māori Appellate Court and the higher courts on a number of occasions. A leading decision on the appointment of trustees and their suitability is the Court of Appeal judgment Clarke v Karaitiana.3 That Court confirmed that usually the views of the owners will carry considerable weight in the appointment of trustees but that exceptions could always be made in the context of desirability of a ra...

4. CAC20004 v Singh [2015] NZREADT 89 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...and defendant have the opportunity to be heard and cross-examined. [31] Accordingly, the defendant’s application for strike-out is hereby dismissed. [32] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms C...

5. Boase - Wharengaere No 3 (2019) 205 Taitokerau MB 227 (205 TTK 227) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...appoint a trustee, the Court shall have regard to the ability, experience, and knowledge of the person and shall not make an appointment unless it is satisfied that the person is broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [14] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees.1 In that case the Court confirmed that the views of the beneficiaries will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying considerations:2...

6. National Standards Committee v Jefferies [2016] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...3 [7] Mr Jefferies pleaded guilty in August of 2015, following a negotiation over the summary of facts. This was over a year after being charged. He was sentenced to total fines of $1,300, having sought a discharge without conviction. On appeal the sentence was upheld. [8] Unsurprisingly Mr Jefferies’ offending attracted considerable media attention. Submissions on seriousness [9] Mr Davey, on behalf of the National Standards Committee drew the Tribunal’s attention to...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 182 Fletcher v Sharp Studhope Lawyers [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Mr Fletcher submitted that the Authority’s investigation is awaiting the completion of mediation, which is currently adjourned. He says that the requested documents are important for the mediation process because a mediation result cannot be appealed and any factual or legal anomaly carried into mediation cannot subsequently be corrected. It is accordingly submitted that significant irreversible consequences will be suffered if his challenge cannot proceed. I do not accept this...

8. ED v VV LCRO 229 / 2010 (15 June 2011) - Costs Decision [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...that type of behaviour were summarised by Sheppard J in Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248, which was adopted by Goddard J in Hedley v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Limited (2002) 16 PRNZ 694 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] 3 NZLR 400. The summary provided by Sheppard J is as follows:- 1. The making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud; 2. Partic...

9. Gemmell v Hemana - Mohaka A4 (2017) 61 Tākitimu MB 239 (61 TKT 239) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...1 Mr Hemana was appointed sole responsible trustee on 19 December 2014 at 36 Takitimu MB 254 (36 TKT 254) 2 144 Napier MB 93-94 (144 NA 93-94) 3 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 657 (2015 APPEAL 657) 61 Tākitimu MB 241 [6] From 1996 until approximately 2005 the Tauwhareroa trust effectively administered the Mohaka A4 block, contrary to the Mohaka A4 Trust’s role as trustee. The Tauwhareroa trust received income due to t

10. LCRO 20/2016 LC and CM v JP - Orders (5 April 2019) [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...clear on the face of the Act whether there is a distinction between a censure and a reprimand. The matter was considered in New Zealand Law Society v B. The High Court had considered that a censure was a more serious rebuke. This was rejected on appeal, when it was stated: Both words envisage a disciplinary tribunal, here a Standard Committee, making a formal or official statement rebuking a practitioner for his or her unsatisfactory conduct. A censure or reprimand, however expresse...