Search Results

1. Loach v Bidois - Matarikoriko No 7B2A (2015) 336 Aotea MB 182 (336 AOT 182) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...for confirmation. Until the process is completed and the person who is to 12 Muraahi v Phillips - Rangitoto Tuhua 551B and 55B1A2 (Manu Ariki Marae) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 528 (2013 APPEAL 528) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0374/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_maori+land+court+rules_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM4073063 336 Aotea MB 192 be offered the right of first...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...Director or Manager of a company for two-and-a-half years. That decision provided useful background information, however we remind ourselves that it dealt with different subject matter from the charge under consideration by the Tribunal and the appeal was argued on the papers without viva voce evidence being heard from Mr Davidson. [8] Mr Davidson’s position has been throughout that it was his honest and genuine belief that the statements made in the prospectus documents and exte...

3. Croon v Māori Trustee - Kekerione 31B (2024) 84 Te Waipounamu MB 224 (84 TWP 224) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...King:4 In Brown v Māori Appellate Court,5 the High Court set out the approach to considering an application for partition. That approach has been adopted by this Court, by the Māori Appellate Court, and was recently endorsed by the Court of Appeal.6 This approach is helpfully summarised in Hammond – Whangawehi 1B3H1:7 [15] The Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant partition orders in relation to Māori freehold land in accordance with Part 14 of the Act. That jurisdictio...

4. Tana v Mahanga - Pukahakaha East 5B (2022) 255 Taitokerau MB 229 (255 TTK 229) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...Horina Nepia and Te Hiwi Piahana Whānau Trust v Ngāti Tukorehe Tribal Committee and Tahamata Incorporation (2014) 319 Aotea MB 238 (319 AOT 238) at [11]. 4 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block (2011) Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64). 5 Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Tākitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184). 6 Manuirirangi v Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64). 7 De Loree v Mokomoko and Ors – Hiwarau C...

5. [2008] NZEmpC WC 18/08 Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd v Wood [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...[42] The status and enforceability of internal employment policies and house rules has been the subject of a number of previous decisions some of which were referred to by Mr Vincent. The approach taken by the Court and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in an analogous case Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan2 is that the ultimate question is not whether there was wilful disobedience to a lawful and reasonable instruction but rather whether the conduct of the worker justified dismiss...

6. AQ v ZI LCRO 105 / 2010 (11 February 2011) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...addition, Duncan Webb in his publication entitled “Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer” (2nd Edition) at page 388 refers to the decision of Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners [2000] 2 NZLR156 and opines:- “While the Court of Appeal in Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners was cautious and did not say the departure from an estimate renders the bill of costs unreasonable, it is submitted that this may be the case. An estimate is a representation that costs will be...

7. Annexure 1 - The Law [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...being made does not prevent the persons hearing the submission on a proposal from having regard to the matters stated in s 32.36 [44] The leading decision on challenging a s 32 Report, is Kirkland v Dunedin City Council.37 Here the Court of Appeal was considering challenges made under s 32(3); the Act was subsequently amended in 2003.38 Nevertheless, the Court’s observations remain pertinent; namely a submitter may legitimately seek to bolster their attack on the provisions by...

8. Savage v Adlam – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matatā (2014) 95 Waiariki MB 176 (95 WAR 176) [pdf, 561 KB]

   ...authorised by the joint venture. 95 Waiariki MB 193 [57] In Chirnside v Fay, Tipping J stated that the onus is “on the errant fiduciary to satisfy the Court that an allowance should be made”. 20 This approach was also taken by the Court of Appeal in Crampton-Smith v Crampton-Smith [2011] NZCA 308. On the issue of an allowance, the Court stated: 21 Here, the value of the improvements to the land effected by the construction of the townhouses accrues to the benef...

9. ZQI v DI [2013] NZIACDT 70 (24 October 2013) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...referred to the Tribunal by the Registrar under section 48: (b) to make decisions as to whether an immigration adviser's licence should be suspended under section 53 pending a final decision in regard to a matter involving a licensee: (c) to hear appeals against— (i) a decision of the Registrar to cancel the licence of an immigration adviser under section 27; or (ii) a determination by the Registrar to reject a complaint under section 45(1)(b) or (c) as not disclosing a gro...

10. IV v DD & Ors LCRO 272/2012 (1 March 2016) [pdf, 81 KB]

    ...Penalty [62] The Standards Committee censured Mr IV, imposed a fine of $500, ordered him to pay costs of $500 and to reduce his fees to $9,500 plus GST. I will address each of these. Censure [63] A censure has been described by the Court of Appeal as:18 a formal or official statement rebuking a practitioner for his or her unsatisfactory conduct. A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into accou...