Search Results

1. Tao v Body Corporate 198693 [2023] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...liable for costs if they joined Ms Tao’s legal actions. [42.2] Dated 1 May 2016 to the other owners concerning Ms Tao’s unsuccessful litigation against Strata and Mr Pandya and the associated costs awards. [42.3] Dated 18 May 2016 advising of an appeal Ms Tao was making to the Court of Appeal. This email also referred to the need to progress to the AGM and advised the owners that they could not vote if they had not paid their Body Corporate debts. Issues in relation to racial ha...

2. Wihapi v Skudder - Pukaingataru B No 3 Sec 2B No 2 [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1156 (2024 CJ 1156) [pdf, 542 KB]

   ...2024 Chief Judge's MB 1168 takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.”3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [18] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:4 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...

3. Gabriel - Succession to Kupai Jack Hakopa Hawera [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1090 (2024 CJ 1090) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.7 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [21] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:8 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...

4. Sutherland - Succession to Henare Arapeti Sutherland [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1311 (2024 CJ 1311) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...mistake or omission. 3 Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) at [15]. 4 Tau v Nga Whānau o Morven and Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2024 Chief Judge's MB 1320 [20] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “er...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...2022 was relied upon, but this was later amended to 21 March 2022, being four weeks after the letter of termination was sent. 6 See for example Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [28]–[30]. This point was not challenged on appeal. 7 Pike v Nelmac Ltd [2024] NZERA 461 (Member Beck). 8 At [40]–[43]. 9 New Zealand Automobile Assoc Inc v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622 (EmpC). than that alleged.10 It was also suggested that s 34 may be used to consider the...

6. Hawira v Pomana - Succession to Te Au Pomana [2024] Chief Judge's MB 2004 (2024 CJ 2004) [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:13 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...

7. [2024] NZREADT 41 – CAC 2103 v Jones Lang Laselle Ltd (29 October 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the Act and the Audit Regulations by failing to record funds in the trust ledger and reconcile accounts. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of $7,500. [42] They also referred to the case of Burnett v Real Estate Agents Authority,8 where Mr Burnett appealed against the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct under s 72 of the Act. Mr Burnett’s agency had failed to comply with reg 15 of the Audit Regulations. Mr Burnett had failed to send reconciliations for almost every mont...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 15 TradeZone Industrial Group Ltd v Stanton [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...entered into the settlement agreement if it had been aware of the alleged breaches, s 149(3)(ab) of the Act states the terms of a settlement agreement may not be cancelled under ss 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The Court of Appeal made obiter remarks on that provision in TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force:7 We note in passing that s 149(3)(ab) may have the surprising, and presumably unintended, consequence of preventing cancellation of a settlement ag...

9. Harrison - Succession to Mere Ngamai [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1334 (2025 CJ 1334) [pdf, 773 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [11] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the c...

10. Tehei - Succession to Taiparoro Hirini [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1356 (2025 CJ 1356) [pdf, 819 KB]

    ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [17] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:4 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the co...