Search Results

1. Brokenshaw - Te Kaha B6X2 (2003) 81 Ōpōtiki MB 18 (81 OPO 18) [pdf, 891 KB]

   ...held previously that under s18(1 ) (a)/93 the Court has power to make a determination as to entitlement or ownership and to follow that by making an order under the appropriate section of the Act so as to give effect to that determination. (See Re An Appeal by Ngahuia Tawhai [1998] NZAR 459,471) What the Maori Land Court should do with such applications is to review and consider the particular circumstances of the case to determine such claims. (See for example Re Okurupatu B4B2A Block (2...

2. Moetara - Pakanae 2Y3A (2014) 88 Taitokerau MB 242 (88 TTK 242) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Whānau Trust given that the Whānau Trust is established solely for Hana (and Jack Moetara’s) descendants. 9 Larkins v Wi Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 2013). 10 Ibid at [27]. 88 Taitokerau MB 248 [18] The applicants also rely on the significant support in favour of the application both from those entitled to succeed and those who are trustees on the Ahu Whenua Trust...

3. Morpeth v Ramsey LCRO 110 / 2009 (12 November 2009) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...In a different context see Davis v Witten-Hannah (3/6/94, Cartwright J, HC Auckland CPI 1389/90) where a lawyer was found to have breached fiduciary duties to a woman whom he both acted for professionally and had a relationship with (reported on appeal Witten-Hannah v Davis [1995] 2 NZLR 141; (1996) ANZ ConvR 65). [22] I also observe that Mr Morpeth accepted that Immigration New Zealand were interested in speaking to him because he was Mr Ramsey’s former lawyer and he had dealt...

4. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 23 (03 April 2013) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...decision. Publication [104] The Tribunal orders the name of the complainant and any information that may identify her will not be published or disclosed, except as necessary to allow the parties to obtain professional assistance and pursue rights of appeal. [105] Subject to the preceding limitation, this decision will be published with the names of the parties after five working days, unless any party applies for orders not to publish any aspect. DATED at WELLINGTON this 3 r...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 208 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond interlocutory [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...and director. [23] I turn now to the issue of protections. In the leading decision as to issues of confidentiality arising in the process of discovery and inspection, Port Nelson Limited v Commerce Commission, 7 the full bench of the Court of Appeal confirmed that in some cases sufficient protection of confidential documents can be given by reason of the conditions which apply to discovered documents – which in the case of this Court are described in reg 51 of the Regulations....

6. [2020] NZREADT 18 - Hilliam [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...principles of ethics. Such evidence is to be provided to the Authority within 12 months of the date of this decision. [59] 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 _________________ Mr G Denley Member...

7. [2015] NZEnvC 066 Waiheke Marinas Limited [pdf, 572 KB]

   ...AO 18/93 2 See for instance Haslam v Selwyn DC (1993) 2 NZRMA 628; Mills v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2005] NZRMA 227; Coull v Christchurch City Council (Environment Court) Decision C077/06; Shell NZ Limited v Porirua City Council (Court of Appeal) CA 57/05 3 (2014) ELRNZ 29 at paragraph [42] Matiatia Direct Referral (Decision re out of scope) 5 reduction in the scale, intensity or character of a proposal will often be found to be within scope. [12] There IS nothing abou...

8. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...claims7. [26] In Hartley v Balemi8 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor9 considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.10 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in Trevor Ivory was not an element of every...

9. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...an inappropriate strategy on a number of levels. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that DG contrived a situation whereby he could make a complaint against BU. While DG says he sought to resolve the impasse by an appeal to BU’s sense of collegiality, DG could, and should, have done things differently. [53] DG knew he was acting on the instructions of a disgruntled client. There was no reason for DG to expose himself to the risk he took in laying...

10. Hamblyn v Auckland City Council [pdf, 53 KB]

    ...plans and that the bearer did not comply with the required standards. Having made those findings, Mr Vaughan must be held to have a degree of personal liability for actual construction defects. [46] Decisions from the High Court and Court of Appeal have all established that to be personally liable, a director needs to either assume some personal responsibility or needs to be directly involved in carrying out, supervising and/or controlling the defective work that has result...