Search Results

1. [2021] NZREADT 35 - Brady (7 July 2021) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...Committee’s costs. The payment is to be made to the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [58] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ________________ Ms C Sandelin Member ________________...

2. Paul v Doorbar - Pukepapa 3 (2020) 414 Aotea MB 16 (414 AOT 16) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...reservation land are not infrequent. As a result, there are many 14 For examples, see Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Part Reservation Trust [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2018 APPEAL 512); Hamilton-Tuahu 3X (2009) 34 Gisborne MB 230 (34 APGS 230); Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) (2004) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98); Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233) 414 Aot...

3. Moeahu v Winitana - Waiwhetu Pa No 4 (2014) 319 Aotea MB 166 (319 AOT 166) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...test for acting honestly was whether the trustees had acted as an honest person would have acted in the circumstances. According to re Grindey, Clews v Grindey reasonably means reasonably as a trustee. 12 [29] In Wong v Burt the Court of Appeal put it this way: 13 In our view, this is not a case where the trustees can claim the protection of s 73 of the Trustee Act 1956. The expression “honestly and reasonably” is conjunctive. It was not merely unreasonable – it was...

4. Quaife – Part Whakapoungakau 1B3G Roadway (2015) 127 Waiariki MB 171 (127 WAR 171) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...of notice being given to owners and the consideration of their views. 9 The 7 Ngunguru Coastal Investments Limited – Horahora 1B4A2D1 and Other Blocks [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 80 (2012 APPEAL 80). 8 At [71]. 9 Tauhara Middle 4A1J11A (2002) 75 Taupo MB 151 (75 TPO 151). 127 Waiariki MB 179 Court noted in that decision that the proposal to declare the Māori roadway a public road and vest it in the local council...

5. CH v DX LCRO 296 / 2012 (10 October 2013) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...above. [23] However, in its judgment, the Court held that a Standards Committee must make an Order censuring a practitioner pursuant to s 156(1)(b) of the Act before it can order publication of the practitioner’s name. This view was upheld on appeal.8 The result of this, is that Regulation 30 will apply to all name publication Orders made by Standards 7 B v The Auckland Standards Committee HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-8451, 9 Septembe...

6. Ellis — Matapihi No 1 B No 2C No 2D (2010) 2010 Chief Judge’s MB 25 (2010 CJ 25) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...omission.” [12] The scope of the Chief Judge’s jurisdiction under section 45 is exceptional, and must be exercised with care. First, the Chief Judge must be satisfied that an error has been made. In R v White (David) [1988] 1 NZLR 264 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “is satisfied” in the context of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. In that case, the Court held that the phrase “is satisfied” means simply “makes up its mind” and is indicative of a state wher...

7. [2020] NZEnvC 174 Hamilton City Council v Global Metal Solutions Limited.pdf [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...achieving compliance. The Council granted the two extensions of time requests for the completion of the noise management plan (to 1 June 2019) but did not gran~ extensions for the compliance date. [102] Mr McGregor advised also that GMS did not appeal the abatement notices and at no time following the issue of the notice did it provide the Council with evidence that it had implemented any noise mitigation measures. Further Council monitoring [103] During 2019 the Council and the...

8. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...loss or damage for which compensation is payable under any Act of Parliament other than the Earthquake Commission Act 1993. [47] At the time of the damage the limit in s 18 EC Act was $100,000 plus GST. [48] In Doig v Tower Insurance the Court of Appeal commented on a clause which was for all intents and purposes the same as in the current case: It was what is commonly called “top-up cover”, over and above the EQC statutory obligation. Tower’s obligation to pay is triggered b...

9. Cranstone - Kauangaroa No 2 (2017) 366 Aotea MB 250 (366 AOT 250) [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...roadway over a Māori reservation in the absence of the consent of the beneficiaries. 7 Trustees of Tauwhao Te Ngare v Shaw - Tauwhao Te Ngare [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 394 (2014 APPEAL 394) 366 Aotea MB 257 [34] In that case I issued a minority judgment. I did not agree that the Māori Land Court could lawfully exercise the discretion to issue a roadway order over a Māori reservation without the consent of the b...

10. CAC 10036 v Hume [2011] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 142 KB]

    ...Hume 10 days after receipt of the CAC’s submissions. Any comments by the CAC strictly in reply may be filed 2 days after receipt of Mr Hume’s response. [33] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 7th day of December 2011 ______________________________ Ms K Davenport Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G De...