Search Results

1. LCRO 18/2017 LK v NM [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...in that they failed to particularise the substance of Mr LK’s objection to the decision. [15] Mr LK’s application is reflective of applications commonly filed in the criminal jurisdiction, where lawyers initially identify as their grounds of appeal, complaint that the Court has erred in fact or law, or failed to take into account relevant considerations. 4 [16] Whilst that approach may provide lawyers working in the criminal jurisdiction, with opportunity and time to reflect...

2. Marine and Costal Area - Customary marine title group planning document [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...documents must follow the process set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA and meet the requirements in Part 5 of the RMA (section 93(9)). This ensures that any alterations in a proposed regional document are subject to public submissions and potentially, appeal. It also means that all relevant matters are weighed and balanced in the process, including costs and benefits identified through the section 32 analysis and the provisions of Part 2. Is it possible for no alterations to be made to a r...

3. Wikiriwhi v Houpapa - Hurakia Trust (2013) 85 Waiariki MB 107 (85 WAR 107) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...abilities of all the trustees and submitted that all trustees should be required to attend trustee training. Legal Principles [16] The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington) the Court of Appeal confirmed that this Court has 85 Waiariki MB 111 extensive supervisory powers in relation to trusts. Blanchard J noted at pp 9-10 that the Maori Land Court: “…is expressly given in s237 in respect of any trust to...

4. Kurei v Shaw - Waioeka Lot 435 (2022) 281 Waiariki MB 60 (281 WAR 60) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...wood, or any flax, tree ferns, sand, topsoil, metal, minerals, or other substances whether usually quarried or mined or not, on or from any Maori land; 6 Flight v Fletcher – Wairarapa 1D 2B 3B [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 96 (2017 APPEAL 96), at [37]. 281 Waiariki MB 65 … [19] Donaldson v Hemi summarised the principles regarding permanent injunctions:7 (a) A permanent injunction may be granted pursuant to s 19(1)(a) of the Act where a trespass has been m...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 95 Tourism Holdings Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...challenged. There would be an associated delay and additional cost arising from participating in an Authority investigation and, if a challenge followed, in a proceeding before the Court. [26] The parties acknowledged they would lose a right of appeal if the proceeding was removed to the Court but they were aware of that consequence. It is an inevitable part of including an ability to seek special leave. [27] Tourism Holdings has satisfied the test in s 178(3) for removal of the m...

6. LCRO 11/2019 AA v ZZ (31 July 2019) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...review if satisfied that it— (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process. [33] In Heenan v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal discussed an earlier decision of the Court,5 and observed that a factor to consider when determining whether or not proceedings could be termed “vexatious”, was to determine whether the proceedings had a reasonable basis and co...

7. Urban Development Bill Advice [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...review, but “any attempt completely to deprive the High Court of its review powers would violate the guarantee”.5 28. Clause 29(2) of the Bill prohibits a person from applying for judicial review of a decision on a draft development plan and appealing to the High Court in respect of the same decision on a development plan, unless both applications are made together. We consider this prohibition is appropriately characterised as a procedural restriction on the right to judicial review...

8. [2019] NZEmpC 189 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...kind which justifies joinder. Although it has been held in the High Court that a right to relief may not in fact be required, this prerequisite exists in the present case. d) In Newhaven Waldorf Management Ltd v Allen, the Court of Appeal stated that the threshold for an order under r 4.56 of the HCR was “fairly low” and that:1 A cause of action need not necessarily be advanced (or lie) against a defendant to be added. Indeed, where the plaintiff opposes joinder,...

9. Budget 2020 Family Violence and Sexual Violence - Summary of Initiatives [pdf, 680 KB]

   ...specifically to medical or strangulation experts attending court as expert witnesses for the defence. This funding is important to ensure that any judicial process leads to a high-quality decision and reduces the chance that decisions will be subject to an appeal process.  This funding will enable prosecution and defence experts for 869 cases a year, and fund strangulation assessments and reports for 1,333 episodes in the first year and 1,361 from year two. Initiative Vote 201...

10. BORA Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill [pdf, 297 KB]

    ...Impoundment does not occur in order to facilitate forfeiture, as release occurs after 28 days even if - as will generally be the case - charges are yet to be determined; and 9.3. Impoundment can also cease before the expiry of the 28 day period on appeal by the driver or owner on various grounds, rather than only when charges have been dismissed or do not proceed: see ss 102(1) and 110 LTA. 10. also note, in this respect, that the explanatory note to the Bill records serious risks to pu...