14170 items matching your search terms
...the Court of her ineligibility to succeed to the deceased’s Māori land interests at the time an application was made for succession. This 1 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 94 correspondence confirms that Emily Pace separated in 1983 from Philip Pace and that her marriage was dissolved in 1991. [13] Emily has also...
...subclause 12(3): (a) The flagrancy of the infringement; [28] The Tribunal does not consider the infringements that are the subject of this application to be “flagrant.” The Tribunal takes account of the applicant’s references to the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Skids Programme Management Limited v McNeill [2013] 1 NZLR 1 and the analysis of “flagrancy” that case sets forth. In the present application, however, only the minimum conditions for an application unde...
...that he is, “seriously considering resigning”. He stated: 22. I found myself looking at properties in the country the other day. I realised that I was looking for a hideaway because the prospect of staying where I am is currently so unappealing. In reference to Mr Ross, Mr Chote deposed: 19. The problem is that with Dominic‟s re-instatement Josh has handed in his resignation. If Dominic returns, Josh will leave. Josh is absolutely clear on this. If Josh leaves, he...
...this Court does not have jurisdiction to award costs to lay persons for costs incurred by themselves in relation to this proceeding. [12] In Hapeta - Whakapoungakau 3B1B Trust 3 the Maori Appellate Court referred to a decision of the Court of Appeal in Official Assignee v Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch 4 which reaffirmed the general rule of practice that a lay litigant should not be paid for their time and trouble unless there were exceptional circumstances that jus...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000112 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 47 BETWEEN ROGER JERZY AND SAMANTHA KAY ZAGORSKI Claimants AND WILKINSON BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent AND ALLIED HOUSE INSPECTIONS LIMITED Second Respondent AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Third Respondent AND RICHARD ANDREW JOHN WILKINSON Fourth Respondent AND CATHERINE WILKINSON Fifth Respondent AND TIMOTHY JOHN BURCHER Sixth Respondent AND
...scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act):11 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...
...dense and prolific. As His Honour Judge Stone has noted in relation to the previous s 240:11 [8] There are several superior court authorities regarding the principles applicable to the serious step of removal of trustees. They include the Court of Appeal judgments Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick, and the Māori Appellate Court decision of Perenara v Pryor. [9] These authorities support the following general propositions: (a) removal is a serious step and is not undertaken l...
...illusion that they will be held to account should it ultimately transpire that the proposal should not have proceeded. They need to consult their advisers as to the nature and extent of their potential liability in this context. [21] The Court of Appeal confirmed the broad powers of the Maori Land Court in respect of trusts in the important judgment The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington). In that decision it was note...
...dispute relating to the appointment of trustees are now before the Mäori Appellate Court. However, this does not affect the conduct of this matter before the Standards Committee. The comments of the judge in relation to Ms Halesowen are not under appeal (and are now well over a year old). Those comments were supported by concerns raised by Mr XX. It was entirely appropriate for the Committee to act on the basis of those comments in commencing an inquiry. [25] It was also suggested...
...and 91 Land Trust (2005) 15 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 192 (15 WGAP 192). 16 151 Taitokerau MB 219-251 (151 TTK 219-251) at 248. 17 See Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Maori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60). 162 Taitokerau MB 279 [40] Wynyard has shown blatant disregard for the authority of the other trustees. He has treated them with contempt and has expressed strong beliefs that he is the true and rightful owner of this l...