Search Results

1. Murray - Mahinepua B1 (2014) 87 Taitokerau MB 227 (87 TTK 227) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...Wainui on 29 July 1967. That suggests to me that there was a large degree of discussion about this kaupapa and that if owners with interests in the land were concerned about the Māori reservations created by the Court they would have objected or appealed or followed up in some way. There is no evidence of any such concerns being raised at the time or until the last two or so years. Based on the Court record I doubt very much that Auwha Ihaia 87 Taitokerau MB 232 pursued...

2. Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (Costs) [2017] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...Tribunal. The facts in Haydock v Gilligan Sheppard HC Auckland CIV2007- 404-2929, 11 September 2008 are illustrative. The Tribunal (as then constituted) awarded costs of $12,500 against the unsuccessful plaintiff (Ms Haydock). On her unsuccessful appeal to the High Court she was ordered to pay a further $7,500. She is recorded at [45] of the decision as stating that her financial position was parlous and that she intended declaring herself bankrupt. A case of public importance [10]...

3. MacDonald - Oraka 4A2 (2006) 111 Wairoa MB 32 (111 WR 32) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Act 1993. These reflect the primary objectives ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 which is the retention, use and development of Maori land by its owners, their whanau and hapu. [15] In Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc (1997) 641, 649-651, the Court of Appeal considered the application of the preamble, sections 2 & 17 to change of status application. The Court stated: TJ1t~ Mi'inri T.nnd f'n1Jrt v't:t>rr:ls:p.s its nnwers and resvonsibilities in relation to avvlicatio...

4. Pritchard - Rangitatau Waitotara 3F1 and 3A (2020) 421 Aotea MB 140 (421 AOT 140) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...notice, opportunity for discussion and support have been, unsurprisingly, before this, the Māori Appellate Court and the higher courts on a number of occasions. A leading decision on the appointment of trustees and their suitability is the Court of Appeal judgment Clarke v Karaitiana.3 That Court confirmed that usually the views of the owners will carry considerable weight in the appointment of trustees but that exceptions could always be made in the context of desirability of a ra...

5. CAC20004 v Singh [2015] NZREADT 89 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...and defendant have the opportunity to be heard and cross-examined. [31] Accordingly, the defendant’s application for strike-out is hereby dismissed. [32] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms C...

6. Tupe - Manunui No 1 Fourth Residue (2013) 309 Aotea MB 25 (309 AOT 25) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...depend on a range of considerations including the nature and importance of the issue being decided, the extent of support and opposition and whether notice has been adequate. [17] In The Trustees of Pukeroa Oruawhata v Mitchell 10 the Court of Appeal underscored the importance of strict adherence to s 244 whenever the Court’s discretion to vary a trust order was invoked. A three step process was necessary that included notice to the beneficiaries, of the proposed variation suf...

7. LCRO 177/2021 FA v LL (14 March 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...scope of review [48] The nature and scope of a review was discussed by the High Court in 2012, which said of the process of review under the Act:8 … 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 t...

8. CAC 306 v White [2016] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...that she disclosed, that Ms White must have been aware of, and that she chose not to disclose. Result [34] The charge against Ms White is dismissed. [35] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ____________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson [2016] NZREADT 38 - White ____________________ Ms N Dangen Member _____________...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 163 The 20 District Health Boards v New Zealand Nurses Organisation [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...Health Boards (DHBs) oppose the NZNO application, submitting that costs should lie where they fall. Its counsel, Mx Hornsby-Geluk, argued that the NZNO was only partially successful in its arguments. She said the Court should follow the Court of Appeal dicta in Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly to the effect that where there is a mixed measure of success, costs should lie where they fall.2 [5] Mx Hornsby-Geluk also submitted that the case was properly regarded as a test case. For this...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 21 Industrial Services Nelson Ltd v Stewart [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...therefore submitted there was no evidence before the Court that explained either of the delays. [21] Mr Thomas claimed that the defendant had been prejudiced in the sense of a disruption to the finality that exists after time has passed in which to appeal a decision and that in itself is a serious detriment capable of being regarded as prejudicial, citing Bilderbeck v Brighouse Ltd.2 [22] There was evidence that the defendant had informed the Court and the plaintiff in Septembe...