Search Results

1. Taueki v Taueki - Horowhenua No 11B Subdivision 14 (2021) 437 Aotea MB 134 (437 AOT 134) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...trust order and general trust law principles. As Mr Rudd suggested, it 11 See Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2017) 64 Tākitimu MB 121 (64 TKT 121) 12 Te Whata v Paku – Akura Lands Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) 437 Aotea MB 143 would appear that one of the challenges trustees face from time to time is that their level of competence in understanding the rules of trusteeship as well as possessing sufficient financial and governanc...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 76 Rush Security Services Ltd v Samoa [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...AA251A/10, 14 October 2010. if so, whether the award of reimbursement for lost income should be reduced because of any failure by Mr Samoa to mitigate his loss. [2] Although the Authority, and the parties in their presentation of their cases on appeal, addressed as the essential question whether casual employment had mutated to ongoing employment, I consider the preferable approach is to consider that as a subsidiary of the fundamental question whether Mr Samoa was dismissed. Th...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 085 Rangitane o Tamaki v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2021] NZEnvC 085 appeals under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 RANGITANE O TAMAI(! NUI-A-RUA INCORPORATED (ENV-2018-WLG-000034) TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL (ENV-2018-WLG-000035) Appellants MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL Applicant Court: Environment Judge B P Dwyer Environment...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 33 Nisha Alim v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...application for costs.9 An application for costs is to be treated no differently for costs purposes from an ordinary interlocutory application, so costs may be awarded according to scale or on an increased or indemnity basis as appropriate. [15] On appeal, that approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Strata Title Administration Ltd v Body Corporate Administration Ltd.10 [16] In this Court, such an approach has been adopted pursuant to the Court’s broad jurisdiction as...

5. Tane-Stockler - Estate of Tanetinorau Opataia (2003) 122 Otorohanga MB 3 (122 OT 3) [pdf, 728 KB]

   ...decided that when the Hauturu East 8 Block was vested it was vested in the original owners in trust for their descendants and that, as a consequence, the applicants were not entitled to any beneficial interest by way of succession. The applicants appealed to the Maori Appellate Court. The Appellate Court found that the land was vested in the original owners and a trust established pursuant to section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953; that according to the provisions of Te Ture...

6. LCRO 68/2019 NI v RC and OD (28 February 2020) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...considered however. … 8 At [59]. 9 Which was received the day before the Standards Committee meeting. 6 [27] In making this comment, the Committee is echoing comments made by the Court of Appeal in R v Nakhla (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 453 where the Court said: … As to the complaints in the motion that the Court did not deal with certain submissions and attributed to counsel a submission he did not make it may be observed that a bel...

7. PGP & QGP v FS LCRO 143/2014 (27 August 2015) [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...lodge a claim against Mr JS in the Disputes Tribunal. That claim was unsuccessful. Mr and Mrs GP consider that the decision delivered by the Disputes Tribunal was manifestly wrong, but advise that they did not have the financial resources to appeal the decision. Their attention then turned to Mr FS’s involvement in the transaction. [22] The complaints process established under pt 7 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is a statutory regime which governs the process by which...

8. Karaitiana-Bryant v Karaitiana - Waipahihi 4H [2024] Chief Judge's MB 278 (2024 CJ 278) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.4 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [19] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the cou...

9. Peters v Eruera - Kaikoura No.4 (2011) 40 Waiariki MB 206 (40 WAR 206) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...none so that all the 8 children would have some ownership of the block. Most of them paid Mac Eruera back but others did not. In June 1992, George Roberts applied to the Māori Land Court to partition the block but was unsuccessful. He then appealed to the Māori Appellate Court in November 1992 and was also unsuccessful. In August 1993, the Māori Land Court issued an order vesting ownership of Kaikoura 4 in Mr George Roberts and Mr Mac Eruera. It also issued a trust order app...

10. Kupa Snr v DJ Whitfield and Sons Ltd – Omahu 4C Section 6 (2015) 45 Takitimu MB 219 (45 TKT 219) [pdf, 439 KB]

    ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. [31] In addition rule 8.1 of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 provides: 8.1 Rehearing (1) An ap...