14177 items matching your search terms
...decision is to be distributed to all parties. Dated at Wellington this 22 nd day of August 2016. W W Isaac CHIEF JUDGE 3 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167)
...20(2)(a). 17 Section 20(1)(b). 18Section 20(4) and s 37(4)(b). 19 Section 22(1) and (4). 20 Schedule 2 cl 3(1). 21Section 27(1)(f) 22Section 37)2)(b) 23 Section 37(4). (k) the Tribunal may consider evidence from another claim heard by it or on appeal that it thinks relevant and applicable to the claim;24 (l) the Tribunal, on its own initiative, may seek and receive any evidence and make investigations and inquiries that it considers appropriate;25 (m) the Tribunal may decide...
...detennining that the land is Maorifreehold land,' or 202 Napier MB 43 (ii) Any other order is made by the Court as a consequence of which the land becomes lvfaori freehold land." [44] Haddon v Rahui Te Kuri Inc - Pakiri R (1993) 3 Taitokerau Appeal MB 178 (3 APWH 178) is the leading case on the operation of section 2(2)(f) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The Appellate Court, in considering the effect of the word "deemed" in section 2(2)(f), noted at paragraphs...
...March 2022 attended by Mr CN and Ms SW, Mr GS and Mr VU, and Mr PG and Mr BB, counsel for Mr GS and Mr VU. [23] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It inv...
...(whether by way of injunction or otherwise.) [22] It is trite law that trustees must adhere to their duties and any suggestion as to a lack of knowledge of such responsibilities is no defence against a claim of breach of duty. The Court of Appeal judgment Rameka v Hall underscored the relevant duties including the principal obligation of being familiar with the terms of the trust. 12 I adopt the principles set out in that decision. Discussion Were the legal costs rea...
...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [22] The issue on review is whether there is good reason t...
...New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we summarise our conclusions before returning to the facts of the case. The decision in Waxman [72] The significance of Waxman lies in its interpretation of HRA, s 107 in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Y v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 474 (4 October 2016) and the subsequent (and superseding) decision of the Supreme Court in Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310. Both senior court decisions addressed the test to be applie...
...a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and that objective.[2] 22. We note that the right protected by section 25(g) has generally been considered to be one that allows few, if any, limitations (see comments of the Court of Appeal in Poumako)[3]. 23. This means that if adopted, the views of Elias CJ and Keith J would have a significant effect upon the manner in which New Zealand gives effect to its international obligations with respect to youth justice pursuant to...
...– Tataraakina C Block (1995) 11 Takitimu Appellate MB 50 (11 ACTK 50); Tito v Tito [2012] NZCA 493; and Clarke v Karaitiana [2011] NZCA 154 22 Trustees of Tauwhao Te Ngare v Shaw - Tauwhao Te Ngare [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 394 (2014 APPEAL 394) 23 Cameron – Part Maretai 3B (1996) 19 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 34 (19 APWM 34) 45 Tākitimu MB 179 Te Haroto Marae [23] As foreshadowed, given the inability of the reservation trustees and committee members t...
...http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court EC4180_NoticeOfHearing SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS pMEP: King Shag ENV-2024-324-000001 Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay (Inc) v Marlborough District Council Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 Court Reference: ENV-2020-CHC-000033 1. i. Topic: