Search Results

1. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v M [2013] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...There were some other grounds cited,2 but the two matters noted above are at the heart of the application for dismissal, on the basis that it would be unfair and a 1 For example see the Court of Appeal in McMenamin v Attorney General [1985] 2 NZLR 274; and Chow v Canterbury District Law Society [2006] NZAR 160 at [15]; and the Tribunal’s power under s 252 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 2 Mr M also alleges “suspicion and goss...

2. Marine and Coastal Area - Provisions for protecting customary interests [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...applicant that resource consent has been granted (section 67(3)).  If the 40 working day requirement is not met, the CMT group is treated as having given permission for the same term as the resource consent (section 67(4)).  There is no right of appeal or objection under ss 357 and 357A of the RMA to a decision to give or decline permission (section 68(2)). Do councils have a role in monitoring and enforcing compliance if CMT permission is granted? As noted, councils will n...

3. 2020 NZEnvC 142 Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [pdf, 16 MB]

   ...waiver, relevant factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the scheme of the Act relating to public participation, what has occurred in the proceeding and what effect introducing new parties might have on progressing the appeal to resolution.3 Discussion [6] I do not consider that any party will be unduly prejudiced by SSL joining the proceedings. SSL's application has been made in the early stages of this proceeding and importantly, prior to the Jud...

4. Mucalo - Estate of Neri Te Waru [2019] Chief Judge's MB 595 (2019 CJ 595) [pdf, 336 KB]

   ...- Waihao 903 Section IX Block.7 I do not propose to repeat those principles again in this judgment. 6 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209). 7 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 605 [14] However, for the benefit of the parties, I note that s 44 explicitly refers to situations where the Court has made an incorrect decision due to a flaw in the evidence presented, or in th...

5. Faulkner - Ohuki 1C Sec2 (2019) 183 Waikato Maniapoto MB 45 (183 WMN 45) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...owners support the application. 3 Bhana v Paniora – Wairau North 1B2C (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 139 (39 TTK 139). 4 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block (2011) 2011 Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). Although this case concerned an application for partition under s 288(2)(b), the relevant statutory language is identical to s 329(2)(b). 183 Waikato Maniapoto MB 52 [25] Not all owners who responded support the occup...

6. Boon v McQueen - Waiwhakaata 3E6 Section 4B2 (2021) 214 Waikato Maniapoto MB 1 (214 WMN 1) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...absence, the trustee is or will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily. [8] There are several superior court authorities regarding the principles applicable to the serious step of removal of trustees. They include the Court of Appeal judgments Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick, and the Māori Appellate Court decision of Perenara v Pryor.7 [9] These authorities support the following general propositions: (a) removal is a serious step and is not undertaken lightly;...

7. Loach v Bidois - Matarikoriko No 7B2A (2015) 336 Aotea MB 182 (336 AOT 182) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...for confirmation. Until the process is completed and the person who is to 12 Muraahi v Phillips - Rangitoto Tuhua 551B and 55B1A2 (Manu Ariki Marae) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 528 (2013 APPEAL 528) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0374/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_maori+land+court+rules_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM4073063 336 Aotea MB 192 be offered the right of first...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...Director or Manager of a company for two-and-a-half years. That decision provided useful background information, however we remind ourselves that it dealt with different subject matter from the charge under consideration by the Tribunal and the appeal was argued on the papers without viva voce evidence being heard from Mr Davidson. [8] Mr Davidson’s position has been throughout that it was his honest and genuine belief that the statements made in the prospectus documents and exte...

9. Croon v Māori Trustee - Kekerione 31B (2024) 84 Te Waipounamu MB 224 (84 TWP 224) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...King:4 In Brown v Māori Appellate Court,5 the High Court set out the approach to considering an application for partition. That approach has been adopted by this Court, by the Māori Appellate Court, and was recently endorsed by the Court of Appeal.6 This approach is helpfully summarised in Hammond – Whangawehi 1B3H1:7 [15] The Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant partition orders in relation to Māori freehold land in accordance with Part 14 of the Act. That jurisdictio...

10. Tana v Mahanga - Pukahakaha East 5B (2022) 255 Taitokerau MB 229 (255 TTK 229) [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...Horina Nepia and Te Hiwi Piahana Whānau Trust v Ngāti Tukorehe Tribal Committee and Tahamata Incorporation (2014) 319 Aotea MB 238 (319 AOT 238) at [11]. 4 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block (2011) Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64). 5 Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Tākitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184). 6 Manuirirangi v Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64). 7 De Loree v Mokomoko and Ors – Hiwarau C...