Search Results

1. Apostolakis v Gilbert (Decision) [2018] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...function of the Tribunal. We can see no possible basis for taking the extraordinary step of removing all or part of these proceedings into the High Court. [15.3] If Mrs Apostolakis is unsuccessful in her claim against Mr Gilbert, she has a right of appeal to the High Court. On such appeal she can raise any question of law which then genuinely arises for determination on the facts as ultimately found by the Tribunal. In the meantime the ordinary statutory process must be allowed to w...

2. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 411 KB]

   ...there was fraud, however, the evidence needs to be strong. For instance, if the evidence is circumstantial, any inferences must strongly point towards there being a single likely explanation for the events.5 [28] In Taylor v Asteron, the Court of Appeal considered the remedies available if fraud is found. The Court considered fraudulent claims cases and found that:6 (a) the rule against fraud is a term requiring honesty in connection with claims, implied by law into insurance contr...

3. Due North Trust v Gardner [2011] NZWHT Auckland 64 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...correct that construction problems with the jamb flashings and other details might have been avoided had appropriate construction details been included either on the plans themselves or in documents attached to the plans. However, the Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces1 held that Councils did not need to ensure manufacturer’s specifications were attached to consent 1 North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 [201...

4. September 2015 Outstanding applications [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...Application to the Chief Judge A20150002503 58/93 Te Uri Reihana-Ngatote, Desmond William Mahoney Okahu 1, 3B2B2A, 3B2B2C, 3B2B2D, 4A, 4B, 4D, 4C1, 4C2, 3A, 3B2A - and an order made at 97 Taitokerau MB 234-273 dated 9 March 2015 - Notice of Appeal & Application for Stay A20150002600 45/93 Sharon Hohepa CJ 2015/12 - Pakuri Rangiheuea and succession orders made at 325 Rotorua MB 4-22 on 21 May 2008 - Application to the Chief Judge A20150002819 45/93 Gloria Antonovich Mataka...

5. Te Manutukutuku Issue 30 [pdf, 8.9 MB]

   ...decision said that Maori were "significantly disadvantaged" by the way the Maori Option exercise was carried out. But, because the Govenlment handling of the option was not "substantially unfair", the Court did not uphold an appeal by the Maori Congress, Maori Women's Welfare League and others that the exercise was unlawful. The court did say, though, that the Crown should feel "some concern" at what had occurred, and that an "extensive ef­...

6. LCRO 205/2015 R and N FAMILY TRUST v EL (27 June 2019) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...scope of review [37] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:4 … 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 tha...

7. Te Amo v Nicholas - Te Whaiti Nui A Toi Block (2020) 233 Waiariki MB 92 (233 WAR 93) [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...couple would have put their money and efforts into obtaining a first home elsewhere without cloudy title. It is a clear enough case of improvement through encouragement and in the expectation of interest… The Court also referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Lankow v Rose, which identified the following four features, which if established would show it would be unconscionable to deny the claimant an interest:16 (a) Contributions, direct or indirect, to the property in ques...

8. Rata - Whataarakai No 1 Roadway and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 374627 [2020] Chief Judge's MB 74 (2020 CJ 74) [pdf, 432 KB]

   ...12. Anecdotally, it is understood that Mr Setter may be retiring from farming operations and his stated reasons for the orders sought may no longer be applicable. 13. The applicants did not become aware of these orders until after both the appeal and rehearing periods had elapsed and now seek the intervention of the Chief Judge so that all relevant facts regarding access and Whataarakai Roadline can be made known. 14. All of the above is respectfully submitted. b) Impact...

9. Edwards - Succession to Ngarangi Kanoa Babbington [2021] Chief Judge's MB 755 (2021 CJ 755) [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...issue.7 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. 7 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 772 [15] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:8 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in...

10. LCRO 73/2024 OR v SV (3 September 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

    ...scope of review [70] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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 that...