Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 101 Milne v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...Court, I decline her applications for variation. Applications to strike out [17] The defendant has applied to strike out both sets of proceedings on largely (although not exclusively) overlapping grounds. Approach [18] The Court of Appeal has confirmed in New Zealand Fire Service Commission v New Zealand Professional Fire Fighters’ Union Inc, that there is no reason for the Employment Court to approach strike out applications on any other basis than that applying in th...

2. Morrison - Te Kaha No.2C Block (2014) 105 Waiariki MB 183 (105 WAR 183) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...In this case there is a clear desire of all parties to restore the whānau homestead. Equally, all parties have acknowledged the interest that the entire whānau has in it. 13 (2007) 7 Whangārei Appeal MB 19 (7 APWH 19). 105 Waiariki MB 192 However, there is no competing claim to ownership and it is unlikely that the minority owners are in a position to restore it. The applicant has commenced that process. [29] She has con...

3. Finlay v Baker [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...extent that it is difficult to identify the claimants as subsequent owners of the subject dwelling requiring a subsequent duty of care. 43. I am further assisted in this view by the vulnerability factor in Hamlin. And the comments of the Court of Appeal in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Charterhill Trustees Limited, [2009] NZCA 374 at par 39. Mr Finlay is possibly the least vulnerable person in relation to this building having personally supervised all aspects of its construc...

4. Brightwell - Okauia B3B1 Block (2017) 135 Waikato Maniapoto MB121 (135 WMN 121) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...MB 130 [27] It is my view that the actions available to the Court now are to consider any review application that might be filed, or to cancel the occupation order pursuant to ss 330 and 330A. I understand that Evelyn Brightwell intends to appeal this decision. In the circumstances I will refrain from taking any further action in relation to the occupation order until the decision of the Māori Appellate Court is to hand. Pronounced in open Court at 11.45am in Hamilton on...

5. Benioni - Succession to John Benjamin Karaitiana [2020] Chief Judges MB 1341 (2020 CJ 1341) [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...(b) If so, is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the error by amending the order? Kōrerorero – Discussion Birth certificate 1 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209). 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 1349 [17] A birth certificate is prima facie evidence of the truth of the information it contains.3 However, that presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilit...

6. Trustpower – EiC – N I Foran (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...which may enhance or impact on Trustpower’s existing, consented or prospective electricity generation assets and associated infrastructure. This includes providing input into regional and district planning activities, including Environment Court appeal processes. 4. TRUSTPOWER’S BACKGROUND AND GENERATION PORTFOLIO 4.1 Trustpower is a publicly listed and predominantly a New Zealand owned company. It grew from the Tauranga Electric Power Board (established in 1924) and was form...

7. Foster v Wood - Taupo No.23 B Section 1 (2015) 108 Taitokerau MB 43 (108 TTK 43) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...to future generations. If a person can Whakapapa to an original owner or occupier of the land that person has a right to the land. [33] The principles in Nuhaka have subsequently been adopted in a number of decisions including by the Court of Appeal in Kameta v Nicholas. 5 [34] These principles apply in the present case. Ms Wood can whakapapa back to an original owner in the land. It matters not that the land was subsequently partitioned, as the relevant association is with the...

8. Ratima - Whirinaki 3 (formerly known as Whirinaki No 1 Section 2F2C) (2015) 126 Waiariki MB 73 (126 WAR 73) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...party: 3 Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Te Taitokerau Appellate MB 261 (7 APWH 261). see also Nicholls v Nicholls - Part Papaaroha 6B Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64); Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Takitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184); Manuirirangi v Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64) and De Loree v Mokomoko – Hiwarau C (2008) 11 Waiarik...

9. Sionepulu v Downer and Police (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...to the Secretariat dated 15 August 2012 on the question of costs he asserted (inter alia): My wife and I (plaintiffs) have decided not to proceed nor participate in the discriminatory Palangi justice system in Auckland but will instead present our appeal to the Maori and Pacific Island radio and press media, and selected Members of Parliament. After wrongly asserting that a member of the Tribunal (Mr Musuku) “has a brother who works for the same law firm (Kensingtonswan lawyers) as...

10. AR v PI LCRO 157/2013 (10 October 2014) [pdf, 116 KB]

    ...them. This is an issue which would need to be determined by a court. [28] Mr AR had not assumed any personal obligations to SN Limited. He had not given any undertaking to remit the funds to UB Lawyers. In this regard, the Court of 6 Appeal judgment in Cashmere Enterprises Limited v Mathias7 referred to by the Standards Committee is relevant. [29] In Cashmere, Mrs Going irrevocably instructed Mr Mathias to pay a GST refund (which she had directed IRD to pay him) to the v...