Search Results

1. December 2015 Outstanding applications [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...45/93 Mary Joss CJ 2015/40 - Amopo Te Atatu or Whakaturou or Kohu - and a succession order made at 29 Tauranga MB 355 on 22 May 1969 - Application to the Chief Judge A20150006148 58/93 Maria Kingi, Rangi Taupatu, Cynthia Kingi, Ronald Puata Appeal 2015/17 - Ngati Maru (Fisheries) Trust - and an order of the Maori Land Court at 341 Aotea MB 211-222 dated 15 September 2015 - Appeal (Respondents: Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Limited) A20150006177 45/93 Kenneth Brown, Canadian T...

2. Kidd v Maori Owners - Whenuanui No 2B [2021] Chief Judges MB 1409 (2021 CJ 1409) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...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. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) 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 court...

3. Allan v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...his company had been involved in a number of projects before being put into voluntary liquidation. The Tribunal draws the inference that this was a limited purpose company as described by Priestley J in Tony Tay (supra). [51] The Court of Appeal in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson10 emphasised the importance of examining the factual matrix in each case before determining if there was personal responsibility. Having undertaken such an examination of the facts the Tribunal consi...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 65 Rayner v Director-General of Health [pdf, 795 KB]

   ...employer, and that the Court’s task is to examine objectively the employer’s decision-making process and determine whether what the employer did, and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.10 The Court of Appeal, when discussing s 103A, has observed:11 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed, the re...

5. Justice Matters - issue 15 - July 2019 [pdf, 3.5 MB]

   ...the Environment Court team is based in Wellington, it oversees cases for the lower North Island between Wellington and Taupō. Most of the Environment Court’s work is underpinned by the Resource Management Act 1991. The Court largely deals with appeals about the contents of regional and district plans and appeals arising out of applications for resource consents. Consent applications may be for land use; a subdivision; a coastal, water or discharge permit; or a combination of these...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 89 Ngawharau v The Porirua Whanau Centre Trust [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...observed that “in such circumstances, the employee has essentially unilaterally terminated the employment agreement and there is no dismissal”. 5 Reference was also made by Judge Inglis to E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers where the Court of Appeal noted that there was substantial force in a submission from counsel that: 6 … where the issue is whether the employee abandoned the employment, the employer should be cautious in drawing that inference and must face a high threshol...

7. Welcome Guide Information for court and tribunal interpreters v4 [docx, 1.7 MB]

   ...requests by the interpreter during a court hearing should be addressed to the judicial officer. The following guidance is from the code of conduct in the Ministry’s Quality Framework: Talking to a judicial officer A judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is referred to as “Justice” followed by their surname. A judge of the District Court or other court (such as the Employment Court or Environment Court) is referred to as “Judge” followed by their surname. A jud...

8. Foreman v Sanders – Estate of Rachel Ngeungeu Zister (2013) 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 286 (63 WMN 286) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...the Will. 7 Joint memorandum of counsel dated 2 July 2013. 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 292 4. If the Court answers ‘no’ to any of the above questions then subject to pursuing any right of appeal or review the Estate will not oppose the granting of the applicants’ succession order. [24] The preliminary questions have been useful in focusing the minds of counsel, the witnesses and the Court. The evidence filed was largely based...

9. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...relied on. We therefore reject this challenge to the extent it is an admissibility challenge. Whether the Disciplinary Tribunal has accorded the wrong weight to any conclusions contained in any judgments is a matter able to be addressed when the appeal is considered, although we do not find it necessary to do so in this case. [34] This decision was followed by Her Honour Thomas J in Deliu.12 [35] It is a matter for the Tribunal as to what weight it accords the judicial comment havi...

10. Mason - Te Konoti B3SB (2015) 104 Taitokerau MB 249 (104 TTK 249) [pdf, 356 KB]

    ...directly, the consent required for easements other then access easements is no different to that required for access 17 Smith v Courtney – Ohuirua No 2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court 284 (2011 APPEAL 284). 18 Ibid at [30] to [33]. 104 Taitokerau MB 265 easements under s 317(1). That is, the test is whether there is a sufficient degree of support for the application among the owners having regard to the nature and i...