Search Results

1. Milner v Milner - Estate of Warihi Te Keu Faenza Milner (2008) 83 Ruatoria MB 108 (83 RUA 108) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...Biddle OJ' WailllaJlia Holllm (2001) the Maori Appellate Court ruled that the relevant tikanga Maori that should be applied, is that of the iwi associated to the land33 In that case the Court considered the tikanga of Tuhoe to 33 10 Rotollla Appeal Minute Books 43-54 83 Ruatoria MB 118 ascertain whether a person was a whangai. It is this approach that should be applied in this case and the relevant tikanga is that of the hapu of Ngati Porou associated with the land. Discl...

2. Sneddon - Estate of Thomas Henry Dick [2018] Chief Judge's MB 858 (2018 CJ 858) [pdf, 451 KB]

   ...1985?: and if so (c) Is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission? 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 3 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 868 Did the deceased Thomas Henry Dick die with issue? [22] I consider that on the balance of probabilities that the applicant has established that the deceased, Thomas Henry Dick, was the father...

3. Cooper - Ngataurua 2A2 (2004) 134 Aotea MB 96 (134 AOT 96) [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...in referring to a number of important policy considerations but they are not relevant here. Minute Book: 134 AOT 101 Then in the recently issued decision of the Maori Appellate Court in re: Port Levy - Wade Wereta Osborne (2003) 6 Te Waiponamu Appeal MB 20 (also cited as 6 APTW 20) a lower Court determination refusing partition was reversed. In that decision the Appellate Court granted the partition based on the particular circumstances of the case. They included the fact that there w...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2019] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 307 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZLCDT 12 LCDT 014/18 IN THE MATTER OF The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO. 2 Applicant AND TIMOTHY JOHN BURCHER Practitioner CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS Mr S Hunter Ms C Rowe Mr P Shaw Mr I Williams DATE OF HEARING 28 and 29 March 2019 HELD AT Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre, Auckland DATE

5. [2022] NZEnvC 169 NZ King Salmon v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 624 KB]

   ...the RMA procedures for such applications, hearings were initially before a Board of Inquiry (‘BOI’), under s149J RMA.3 The BOI issued its report including determination of the consent applications on 22 February 2013.4 Following subsequent appeals (including to the Supreme Court), the final outcome was that Waitata Salmon Farm was one of four farms that were approved under resource consents.5 [6] In its final decision, the BOI described the conditions of U140294 as “hav[in...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 110 Cowan v Kidd [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...rates 10 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 (PC). 11 Hickman v Turn and Wave Ltd [2011] NZCA 100, [2011] 3 NZLR 318 at [248]. This decision was overturned on appeal but not on this point: Hickman v Turn and Wave Ltd [2012] NZSC 72, [2013] 1 NZLR 741. 12 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 95, [2016] ERNZ 591 at [70]. http://www.westlaw.co.nz/maf/wlnz/app/link/doc?uci=CASE~N...

7. Henderson - Waiohiki 1D2B10D (2016) 55 Takitimu MB 83 (55 TKT 83) [pdf, 337 KB]

   ...to reflect the nature of the relationship and the joint ownership of the property. 9 Matthews v Matthews – Estate of Graham Ngahina Matthews [2011] Maori Appellate Court MB 512 (2011 APPEAL 512) at [55] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM291563#DLM291563 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM291520#DLM291520 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1...

8. [2008] NZEmpC AC 3/08 B W Murdoch Ltd v Horn (Labour Inspector) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...employer only when work is available: (ii) the employer's rosters or other similar systems: (iii) the reasonable expectations of the employer and the employee that the employee would work on the day concerned. [32] In a recent Court of Appeal decision4, Chambers J, delivering the decision of the majority, held that the question of whether a day would otherwise be a working day is an intensely practical one. The factors employers and employees are bound to take into account...

9. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee No. 1 v Grave [2016] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...to our decisions in similar cases such as Hart5 and Eichelbaum.6 [43] The application for permanent name suppression is declined however, as signalled to Mr Grave, the interim name suppression order will remain in place until the expiry of the appeal period in this matter. Referral to Registrar General of Lands [44] The Standards Committee has asked the Tribunal to make a comment as to whether this matter ought to be referred to the Registrar General, a matter which might impa...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 142 Christieson v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...evidence. The evidence will be tested at the substantive hearing. Does the plaintiff have an arguable case? Is there an arguable case for unjustifiable dismissal? [10] Mr Christieson was dismissed on the grounds of incompatibility. The Court of Appeal has noted that a dismissal on such grounds will only be available in very rare circumstances.6 [11] Ms Service, counsel for the defendant, properly conceded that for the purposes of an interim reinstatement application, it is arg...