Search Results

1. Robinson - Te Tii A Waitangi Marae (2023) 261 Taitokerau MB 220 (261 TTK 220) [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...Taurua’s application discloses a reasonably arguable cause of action. Rather, the question is whether the application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Limited, the Court of Appeal held that a frivolous pleading is one that trifles with the Court’s processes while a vexatious contains an element of impropriety.29 An abuse of process extends beyond the other grounds and captures all other instances of mi...

2. [2023] NZREADT 2 - Wilson and Wilson v Registrar of the REAA (26 January 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...justice or to empower the Registrar to implement cost saving measures. The Registrar must be fair to complainants and keep foremost in mind the purpose of the Act. 11. It is too much of a stretch for counsel to seek guidance from Vosper, as that appeal was against an evaluative decision, not a discretionary one.2 In Vosper, the committee, the Tribunal and the High Court properly addressed the substantive issues and gave reasons. In the current case, the Registrar’s decision...

3. December 2015 Outstanding applications [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...45/93 Mary Joss CJ 2015/40 - Amopo Te Atatu or Whakaturou or Kohu - and a succession order made at 29 Tauranga MB 355 on 22 May 1969 - Application to the Chief Judge A20150006148 58/93 Maria Kingi, Rangi Taupatu, Cynthia Kingi, Ronald Puata Appeal 2015/17 - Ngati Maru (Fisheries) Trust - and an order of the Maori Land Court at 341 Aotea MB 211-222 dated 15 September 2015 - Appeal (Respondents: Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Limited) A20150006177 45/93 Kenneth Brown, Canadian T...

4. Kidd v Maori Owners - Whenuanui No 2B [2021] Chief Judges MB 1409 (2021 CJ 1409) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:13 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 court...

5. Ruha - Succession to Takerei Ruha [2025] Chief Judge's MB 30 (2025 CJ 30) [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...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 cour...

6. LCRO 47/2021 BQ v ZG (16 December 2024) [pdf, 665 KB]

   ...assessor. The Court declined the recall application. [112] The respondent paid the global sum held to be owing to CMLL (incorporating the sum recommended by the first costs assessor) and the High Court dismissed the bankruptcy application. [113] On appeal by CMLL of various High Court decisions in the CMLL proceedings on various grounds, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the sum recommended by the assessor was not a debt due but confirmed the High Court’s decisions to decline th...

7. LCRO 15/2023 and LCRO 21/2023 OE v CN (13 February 2025) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...Mr OE’s submissions to the Standards Committee dated 17 October 2017. 16 Nature and scope of review [64] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:62 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 invol...

8. Tukaha v Samuels - Succession to Kahukuranui Piwari [2025] Chief Judge's MB 728 [pdf, 585 KB]

   ...that takes 2025 Chief Judge's MB 752 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. [23] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) 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 court or the Re...

9. Māori Land Court judgments subject index [pdf, 846 KB]

   ...92 Waiariki MB 183 92 WAR 183 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 s 241 Partial termination of trust dismissed DCJ Fox 17.03.2014 Williams - Harataunga West 2B2B2B2 74 Waikato Maniapoto MB 6 74 WMN 6 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 s 59 Preliminary appeal J Coxhead 17.03.2014 Stebbing - Tauhara Middle 4A 2B 2C (Opepe Farm Trust) 92 Waiariki MB 218 92 WAR 218 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 s 222 Appointment of trustees J Harvey 12.03.2014 Ngamoki-Cameron v Koopu - The Proprietors o...

10. Waitangi Tribunal - He Whiritaunoka (Whanganui) chapter 28 [pdf, 857 KB]

    ...incorrectly. Māori who advocated alternatives envisaged a system in which they could adjudicate title themselves. excluding Māori from the formal aspects of the court’s process was a more serious flaw of the system because there was no right of appeal from the court’s decisions before 1894. Theoretically, rehearings were available, but in practice the decision to grant them was highly dis­ cretionary, and occurred rarely. The fact that it took the Crown three decades from the tim...