Search Results

1. Matchitt - Frank Hata Estate [2016] Chief Judge's MB 860 (2016 CJ 860) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...278-279 did not refer to substitution of issue and therefore Frank’s interests in Te Kaha8 were vested in his brothers and sisters, including Hubert. 6 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167-216 (2010 APPEAL 167) 7 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 8 Te Kaha 110 (Formerly Te Kaha 20B) and Te Kaha B6W & B6W1B 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 866 [12] Hubert deceased on 11 September 1977 leaving a Will and issue. The W...

2. CAC20003 v Sue [2015] NZREADT 87 [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...US4700 Manage trust accounts in real estate firms 7 US4702 Implement internal controls and conduct internal checks and audits in real estate firms [31] 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 J Gaukrodger Member ______________________________...

3. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...written to the employer advising that the employee was considered to have a personal 2 Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [35]-[37] (This issue is not one affected by subsequent appeals in that case). 3 At [32]. grievance for unjustified disadvantage. The Court held that this was insufficient. 4 The 2 August correspondence forwarded to the defendant on Mrs Marx’s behalf, and by Mrs Marx herself...

4. Gray v Ministry for Children (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...in the Minute issued on 25 January 2018. In that case the Commissioner unambiguously commenced an investigation but having done so, closed the file under PA, s 71(1)(g) on the grounds that Mr Cooper had an adequate alternative remedy or right of appeal available. The submission for Hamilton Pharmacy was that before it could be said there had been an investigation for the purposes of Part 8 of the Act, the Commissioner must first come to a conclusion as to whether there has been a breach...

5. Otago Standards Committee v Zhao [2016] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...disciplinary history is to be considered but also that it is necessary to give effect to the public protection purposes of the Tribunal’s penalty function. [17] Mr Shaw submitted that: “To adjourn imposition of penalty until all review or appeal options have been exhausted would give rise to unconscionable delay and would undercut the statutory emphasis on ensuring the expeditious determination of proceedings”. [18] We accept that submission entirely and repeat that adjournmen...

6. LCRO 77/2021 GS and VU v CN and SW (23 March 2022) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...March 2022 attended by Mr CN and Ms SW, Mr GS and Mr VU, and Mr PG and Mr BB, counsel for Mr GS and Mr VU. [23] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It inv...

7. Deputy Registrar v Trustees of Okahukura 8M2C2C2B Trust - Okahukura 8M2C2C2B Trust (2015) 337 Aotea MB 101 (337 AOT 101) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...(whether by way of injunction or otherwise.) [22] It is trite law that trustees must adhere to their duties and any suggestion as to a lack of knowledge of such responsibilities is no defence against a claim of breach of duty. The Court of Appeal judgment Rameka v Hall underscored the relevant duties including the principal obligation of being familiar with the terms of the trust. 12 I adopt the principles set out in that decision. Discussion Were the legal costs rea...

8. BD v EG LCRO 107/2012 (26 Aug 2015) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [22] The issue on review is whether there is good reason t...

9. Director of Proceedings v Smith (Application for Final Non-Publication Orders) [2019] NZHRRT 32 [pdf, 695 KB]

   ...New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we summarise our conclusions before returning to the facts of the case. The decision in Waxman [72] The significance of Waxman lies in its interpretation of HRA, s 107 in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Y v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 474 (4 October 2016) and the subsequent (and superseding) decision of the Supreme Court in Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310. Both senior court decisions addressed the test to be applie...

10. BORA Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill [pdf, 408 KB]

    ...a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and that objective.[2] 22. We note that the right protected by section 25(g) has generally been considered to be one that allows few, if any, limitations (see comments of the Court of Appeal in Poumako)[3]. 23. This means that if adopted, the views of Elias CJ and Keith J would have a significant effect upon the manner in which New Zealand gives effect to its international obligations with respect to youth justice pursuant to...