Search Results

1. Smith - Pekapeka 2A1D2B (2021) 91 Tākitimu MB 145 (91 TKT 145) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...are also an insufficient ground for opposition as is concerns over how subsequent owners of land may have conducted themselves in terms of 6 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block VII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 Appeal 259) 7 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 (HC) 91 Tākitimu MB 152 Mr Nikora. Ms Cracknell should therefore provide a submission as to why she opposes the partition setting out clearly her grounds. To avoid doub...

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v A Practitioner [2020] NZLCDT 32 (13 October 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...practitioner in the Court Precincts when he was challenged by a security guard about his motorcycle helmet. [15] It is common ground that, on the day in question, the practitioner was at Court not for professional purposes, but in relation to an appeal in the High Court relating to family matters. It is also accepted that having regard to the outcome of those proceedings the practitioner “… would have been and likely presented as very distressed…”. On being asked for the c...

3. Deputy Registrar v Severne - Okahukura 8M2C2C2B (2017) 365 Aotea MB 174 (365 AOT 174) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...constituted under this Part of this Act the Court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [17] The leading authority on the appointment of trustees is the Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana where is was said: 1 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In cons...

4. Timoti v Te Are - Torere 33 (2017) 171 Waiariki MB 83 (171 WAR 83) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...5 165 Waiariki MB 139-151 (165 WAR 139-151). 6 170 Waiariki MB 195-211 (170 WAR 195-211). 7 Tatere v Te Aute Trust Board - Mangatainoka No 1B No 2C Tamaki No 2A2A (Balance) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 243 (2013 APPEAL 243). 171 Waiariki MB 86 [15] The applicant raises a further issue regarding a payment made by the Māori Trustee to Hoata Farms Ltd for work done on the block. The applicant submits that the work was not commissioned and th

5. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Jacobsen [2021] NZLCDT 18 (25 May 2021) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...109, referring to Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720, 724 – 725. 9 Pillai v Messiter (1989) 16 NSWLR 197. 10 Pillai v Messiter (1989) 16 NSWLR 197, 200. 9 [30] Kirby J’s dicta was adopted by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v C where it was held that intentionality is not a necessary ingredient of misconduct. The Court stated: While intentional wrongdoing by a practitioner may well be su...

6. Rika v Williams - Torere Section 33 (2018) 189 Waiariki MB 139 (189 WAR 139) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed8170b93d_222_25_se&p=1&id=DLM381179 189 Waiariki MB 146 [26] The leading authority regarding the appointment of trustees is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana, which noted:7 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In considerin...

7. Clearwater Cove Apartments Body Corporate 170989 v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNERS IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT? [23] Ms Thodey submitted that the Council did not owe a duty of care to residential owners in a mixed commercial/residential development. However, since this claim was heard the Court of Appeal considered this issue in North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 207624 (Spencer on Byron).6 [24] In Spencer on Byron the application for building consent referred to the ―Byron Avenue hotel‖ and described it as a hotel/a...

8. [2017] EmpC 124 Sunair Aviation v Walters [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...justified on financial grounds; 7 At [29]. 8 At [30], citing Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2015] NZEmpC 92. 9 At [64]. 10 At [66]. 11 At [89]. 12 At [93]. 13 The application refers to an “appeal” but a challenge is meant. (b) Mr Walters’ challenge will require all the evidence in the Authority to be traversed, even on the limited basis on which the challenge is made; (c) The delay in filing a challenge is les...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 58 Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...various email exchanges between the parties which indicated some frustration on his part in resolving the costs issue because Evolution had changed its legal representation and was obtaining a second opinion as to whether or not it would file an appeal in the matter. [4] On 13 October 2011, a memorandum was filed on behalf of the plaintiff with respect to the issue of costs. It confirmed that Evolution had changed its legal representation to Russell McVeagh and that Mr Skelton ha...

10. GL v JS LCRO 289/2013 (30 October 2014) [pdf, 56 KB]

    ...the LCRO considers that the Review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [29] In Deliu v Hong the High Court made the following observation about the role of the LCRO:6 In my view the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...