Search Results

1. Goldsmith - Matata Parish 63Z (2021) 263 Waiariki MB 214 (263 WAR 214) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust;8 and Rudd v Former Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust Trustees.9 [14] I adopt the reasonings set out in these judgments. 6 Te Whata v Paku - Akura Lands Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) 7 Hall v Opepe Farm Trust – Opepe Farm Trust (2009) 90 Taupo MB 189 (90 TPO 189) 8 Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2012) 18 Tākitimu MB 75 (18 TKT 75) 9 Rudd v Former Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust Trustee...

2. BORA Wanganui District Council Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...to a limited degree. 9 See, for example Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District 976 F. Supp. 659 (1997). 10 In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754; as well as the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisi...

3. CAC 304 v Morris [2016] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...$6,000 to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within one calendar month of this decision, and we also formally censure the defendant. [19] 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...

4. Denee [2011] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...occurred prior to the commencement of the Act. This was $2,000 and in addition it censured the practitioner and ordered the payment of costs of $3,230. The Standards Committee declined to publish the name of the practitioner. The complainant appealed the Standards Committee decision to the Legal Complaints Review Officer who, on 21 July 2010 gave a decision pursuant to sections 211(b) and 152(2) of the Act that the matter be referred to the Tribunal. Pursuant to section 212 char...

5. LCRO 161-2016 XS v VS [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Committee may, in its discretion, decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action, on any complaint if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee,— … (f) there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. [31] It is a little puzzling that Mr VS has chosen to pursue a re...

6. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (15 August 2013) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...reached the necessary threshold of the New Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal. The outcome sought was that the decision of the Committee be quashed, a determination made as to the facts and law, or deferring the matter until such time as the appeal was heard. These grounds were enlarged in an attached letter and in further correspondence, which altogether contained extensive submissions, particularly concerning the background to the allegations of bias. [12] The main grou...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 064 Mitchell Family Trust v Point Trust [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...merit on that party's side or embarking on an inquiry into the merits as that would be contrary to the objective of finality.9 [12] I also note that the amounts claimed in this case are stated to be GST inclusive. I note that the Court of Appeal has provided authoritative guidance on this. In relation to the GST component of costs and disbursements actually incurred by a party claiming costs, a GST-registered party will generally recover from the Commissioner of Inland Revenu...

8. Te Tumu Paeroa v Wharerau - Lot 9 DP 37339 (CFRNA971/29) (2015) 107 Taitokerau MB 262 (107 TKT 262) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...to rule 7.5(2)(b) of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 these orders are to issue forthwith. 9 Te Hokowhitu v Proprietors of Matauri X – Matauri X [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 566 (2010 APPEAL 566). 107 Taitokerau MB 269 [39] I grant leave for the applicant to seek any further orders if necessary. Dated at Whangarei on Friday this 24 th day of June 2015. M P Armstrong JUDGE...

9. Holland & Ors as Trustees of the Harbourview Trust v Auckland City Council [2010] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 82 KB]

   Page 1 of 8 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-100-000008 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 7 BETWEEN JAMES HOLLAND, ALAN IVORY and YVONNE VAN DONGEN as Trustees of the HARBOURVIEW TRUST Claimant AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND L REEVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (in Liquidation) (Removed) Second Respondent AND LLOYD FREDERICK REEVE (Bankrupt therefore removed) Third Respondent AND LAUREEN EDITH REEVE Fourth Respondent AND MAX GRANT ARCHITEC

10. [2018] NZEmpC 108 Butterfield v Alliance Group Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...Development [2017] NZEmpC 18 at [6]. payment under s 46 of the Legal Services Act. Where a party seeks an order under s 45(5), in general, a Court will make one.8 [26] The purpose of sections such as s 46 was considered by the Court of Appeal in Laverty v Para Franchising Ltd: they are to compensate, to the extent appropriate, part or all of the countervailing disadvantage caused to unaided parties of not being able to recover their costs from a legally aided opponent.9...