Search Results

1. Pirini v Ure - Oakura Pa (2020) 425 Aotea MB 237 (425 AOT 237) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...“satisfactorily”.9 It was held that the Court is required to carefully review the trustees’ performance against standard trust duties to decide whether removal was appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case. [33] Then in the Court of Appeal decision Rameka v Hall, that Court underscored the necessity for trustees to consistently follow their duties and responsibilities and that when trustees’ behaviour was contrary to those duties then removal was inevitable.10...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 13 Elisara v Allianz New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...vindication. [11] There will be circumstances in which it is reasonable to decline a Calderbank offer on the basis that its terms are not sufficiently certain. In Health Waikato Ltd v Van der Sluis (a judgment referred to by the plaintiff) the Court of Appeal held that where something is not explicitly said to be included in the offer, it can be concluded that it is not included.9 What made it reasonable to reject the offer in that case was that, without the inclusion of pre-offe...

3. Solomon v Otte - Te Awapatiki- B2 & 2B3 (2021) 74 Te Waipounamu MB 125 (74 TWP 125) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...litigation concerning the applicant’s purchase of one-quarter of the shareholding of the trust.3 2 7 Chatham Islands Minute Book 116 (7 CHAT 116). 3 Solomon v Smith – Te Awapatiki No 2A1 and others [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 563 (2012 APPEAL 563). 74 Te Waipounamu MB 128 [9] Until recently, the trustee group had consisted of 3 trustees representing the 3 branches of the Solomon hūnau still holding shares, and the applicant representing his own shareholding....

4. [2021] NZREADT 42 - Complaints Assessment Commitee v Vulinovich (6 August 2021) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...falsified records were genuine and refused to accept responsibility for her actions. His Honour characterised Ms Prasad as having come before the Tribunal “not … as a penitent but as a recalcitrant”.14 On those grounds, the Authority’s appeal against the Tribunal’s order for suspension of Ms Prasad’s licence was overturned and cancellation ordered. [47] Similarly, Mr Mairs did not admit any wrongdoing and maintained that stance throughout the disciplinary process. The...

5. Taueki v Taueki - Horowhenua No 11B Subdivision 14 (2021) 437 Aotea MB 134 (437 AOT 134) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...trust order and general trust law principles. As Mr Rudd suggested, it 11 See Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2017) 64 Tākitimu MB 121 (64 TKT 121) 12 Te Whata v Paku – Akura Lands Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) 437 Aotea MB 143 would appear that one of the challenges trustees face from time to time is that their level of competence in understanding the rules of trusteeship as well as possessing sufficient financial and governanc...

6. [2023] NZREADT 9 – Complaints Assessment Committee 2108 v O’Brien & Wildman (28 April 2023) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...his professional obligations. 2 Chaudhary v Real Estate Agents Authority [2019] NZREADT 24, Complaints Assessment Committee 1905 v Brady [2021] NZREADT 35, Complaints Assessment Committee 409 v Wong [2018] NZREADT 16. 5 2. The Court of Appeal has highlighted the importance of an agency agreement.3 3. He breached his obligation to the parties (marketing the property without an agency agreement) and acted unprofessionally towards his employer. 4. By failing to inform his em...

7. Austen v Far North District Council - Okahu 3B2A and Okahu 3B2B2D (2022) 252 Taitokerau MB 87 (252 TTK 87) [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...additional jurisdiction.16 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Preamble and s 2(1). 15 Above n 13, s 2(2). 16 See Mikaere-Toto v Te Reti B and C Residue Trust – Te Reti B and Te Reti C Block (2014) Māori Appellate Court MB 249 (2014 APPEAL 249), and Nikora v Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua (2020) 2020 Māori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 APPEAL 248). 252 Taitokerau MB 97 [39] Also, s 24A does not expressly limit the Court’s jurisdiction under s 18(1)(d) of TTWMA. In...

8. LCRO 3/2019 YR v OS (20 July 2020) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...in relation to Mr. OS’s alleged failure to comply with Rule 6.1 in relation to the writing of wills in 2006. This appears at paragraphs 34 – 39 of the Notice of Determination. [39] However, the scope of this review “is much broader than an appeal”17 and consequently I am not restricted to considering only the issues raised by Mr YR. The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:18 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal....

9. Tutakangahau v Boynton - Allotment 335 Parish of Waiotahi [2024] Chief Judge's MB 291 (2024 CJ 291) [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...that takes 2024 Chief Judge's MB 299 into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.6 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [22] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:7 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the Re...

10. MOJ0343.1M_YoungWit_pamphlet_Maori_PRINT.pdf [pdf, 745 KB]

    ...victim impact statements. If the judge agrees, you and your parent or guardian can read out all or part of your victim impact statement in court. If you want to do this, ask the police officer or your court victim advisor to ask the judge for you. APPEALS The prosecutor and the defendant have the right to appeal the verdict and the sentence. This means a higher court will look at the case again. The prosecutor will tell you if this is going to happen. AFTER THE COURT CASE IS HEARD...