Search Results

1. Bidois v Trustees of Te Rimu Trust - Tokata A14 and other blocks (2013) 31 Tarawhiti MB 95 (31 TRW 95) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...consider the implications of a partition should they wish to proceed down that path. Voting at meetings [26] Another issue that arose during the hearing was the matter of voting at meetings of beneficial owners. There is authority from the Court of Appeal, the Māori Appellate Court and this Court that supports the following propositions: (a) The Māori Assembled Owners Regulations 1995 do not apply to general meetings of owners called by trustees of a trust constituted under part...

2. McCarthy & Anor v CAC 20007 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 94 [pdf, 53 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZREADT 94 READT 61/13 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN ROBERT AND ANGELA MCCARTHY Applicants AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20007) First Respondent AND MICHAEL MATUTINOVICH Second Respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms K Davenport QC – Chairperson Mr G Denley – Member Ms N Dangen – Member HEARD at AUCKLAND on 2...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 109 Wellington City Transport Limited t/a Go Wellington v NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...the principles of contractual interpretation applicable to the interpretation of collective employment agreements. Reference was made by both counsel to the recognised leading authorities on the issue. Of particular relevance was the Court of Appeal decision in Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc, 2 which was a case concerned with the correct approach by this Court to the interpretation of collective employment agreements. [12] The Co...

4. Adams & Anor v Easthope & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...claimants settled their claim against all the respondents other than Mr Sayles and Terrence Easthope. Neither Mr Sayles nor Mr Easthope attended the hearing and following a formal proof hearing both were found jointly liable. [3] Mr Sayles appealed the decision. The District Court set aside the orders in so far as they related to Mr Sayles and referred the matter back to the Tribunal. Mr Sayles disputes any liability as he says that he was not the project manager and there...

5. S Dwan v Park No 3 Trust & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 10 [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...that she found the situation stressful from 2007 when she discovered the property leaked until the claim was settled. She found it difficult to work full time because of the worry and uncertainty. She could not plan her life. [6] The Court of Appeal in Byron Ave2 provided a guide for damages in such situations at $25,000 for an owner occupier in Ms Dwan’s circumstances and I find that her evidence shows she is entitled to this level of damages. [7] Ms Dwan obtained an overdr...

6. OR v PL LCRO 88 / 2011 (20 August 2012) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...complaints when it provided in section 138(1)(f) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 that a Standards Committee may determine to take no further action in respect of a complaint if “there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal...that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise.” [23] If the fact that a person would incur costs in pursuing that remedy (rather than making a complaint which is free) were a factor to be taken into acco...

7. MLC- MAC - 2016 sitting dates [pdf, 723 KB]

   ...application is made under part 4 or sections 214 or 217 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, with the Registrar of the Court in which the application is to be heard, or with the Chief Registrar in respect of applications to the Chief Judge, notices of appeal to the Māori Appellate Court and any other application required to be lodged with the Chief Registrar as set out in rule 4.1(2). W W ISAAC J M TANGAERE CHIEF JUDGE CHIEF REGISTRAR MĀORI LAND COURT / MĀOR...

8. IW v SD LCRO 1 / 2011 (9 March 2012) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...instructed to act in relation to proceedings arising from a property transaction involving the Applicant. [3] It appears that the Applicant had summary judgement entered against it by the vendor of the property but that this decision was successfully appealed in the Court of Appeal at which the Applicant was represented by senior counsel and another 2 barrister. It further appears it was decided that for the substantive High Court proceedings senior counsel would be assisted...

9. Charteris v Rowe - Estate of David Charteris (2018) 181 Waiariki MB 108 (181 WAR 108) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...181 Waiariki MB 117 [40] Further, I agree with counsel for the respondent’s submission that this Court is estopped from determining the issue of entitlement to succeed as it has already been determined by the High Court. In the Court of Appeal decision of Kameta v Nicholas concerning entitlement to succeed to Māori land interests the Court of Appeal found that the principle of estoppel per rem judicatum applied in that:9 [44]…That rule applies to bar a party from disput...

10. Fredricsen v Hikuwai - Wainui D Block (2016) 143 Taitokerau MB 135 (143 TTK 135) [pdf, 212 KB]

    ...agent, of rent, purchase money, royalties, or other proceeds of the alienation of land, or of any compensation payable in respect of other revenue derived from the land, affected by any order to which an application under section 45 or an appeal under Part 2 relates. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, any injunction made by the court under this section may be expressed to be binding on the Māori Trustee. (3) Any injunction made by the court un...