Search Results

1. Smith - Waiomu 3B2B2B3B2(2015) 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 12 (105 WMN 5) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...access to 1B, B2 and European land to the east of B2 was declined. 10 Another application was brought by Taimoana Turoa, one of the then trustees of B2, in 1986. This was the decision that was declined by the Māori Land Court in 1989. 11 An appeal to the Māori Appellate Court was also dismissed in December 1989. [28] The Māori Land Court’s reasons for dismissing the application were referred to earlier in this judgment. As set out in Mr Smith’s evidence, the circumsta...

2. Brown v Otago Polytechnic (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...unparticularised allegations against the Chairperson. [17] In a decision given on 4 February 2014 the Tribunal dismissed the recusal application and directed that the strike out application be heard. [18] Mr Brown then advised that he intended appealing the recusal decision. As matters transpired no valid appeal was brought but in any event, no stay having been sought or granted, the Chairperson by Minute dated 14 March 2014 directed that the strike out application be heard on 19 Ma...

3. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 62 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...earliest contact with the Tribunal was as counsel in the Muriwhenua Fisheries inquiry over twenty years ago; his interest in fisheries law and Māori fisheries and Treaty rights has been sustained ever since. He is currently chair of the Fisheries Quota Appeal Tribunal. Mr Castle has acted as independent specialist advisor to select committees on fisheries and foreshore and seabed matters. He is internationally recognised as an expert in sports law, serving on the Sports Tribunal of New...

4. Deputy Registrar - Orongotea B no 1 (2008) 125 Whangarei MB 36 (125 WH 36) [pdf, 4.7 MB]

   ...classes of alienees: section 147 A and 152(1 )(t). This goes to the heaIt of the Act. The legal and social impOliance of the alienation confirmation provisions of the Act have been emphasised in many Court decisions including decisions of the COUli of Appeal in Valuer General v Mangatu Inc. [1997] 3 NZLR 641 and Bruce v Edwards [2003]1 NZLR 515. In the earlier decision the President of the COUli of Appeal observed: 125 Whangarei MB 43 "The 1993 Act imposes vety significant co...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 154 AFFCO NZ Ltd v NZMWU [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...These events had resulted in a sharp decline of Union membership. [14] The evidence went on to describe a range of subsequent issues, many of which had resulted in decisions being made by the Authority, by this Court or by the Court of Appeal. Reference was made to a lockout which occurred in early 2012, to various issues as to bargaining then and later, including the issues which came before the full Court in November 2015 4 and more recently in the Court of Appeal. 5...

6. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 403) v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 1 [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...assertive in preventing the type of behaviour of which the defendant was accused. [78] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedures to be followed are set out in Part 20 of the High Court Rules. ______...

7. Te Manutukutuku issue 72 [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...district inquiries and on two urgent inquiries. Those were the Kiwifruit Marketing and Ngāti Maniapoto / Ngāti Tama Settlement Cross­Claims inquiries. Justice Joe Williams, the former Chair person of the Tribunal, was appointed to the Court of Appeal in December 2017. While he was the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, Justice Williams served as Deputy and Acting Chairperson from 1999 to 2004 and then as Chairperson up to his appointment to the High Court bench in 2008. ...

8. Yates v Nathan - Neville David Nathan Whanau Trust [2016] Chief Judge's MB 223 (2016 CJ 223) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...applicant made the following salient points relating to the nature of her claim: 5 Tau v Nga Whanau o Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block (2010) Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 234 (a) She contended that the claim of Ms Yates is not one of equity, but rather one of statutory relief, and therefore the principle “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands�...

9. Insley v Huritu - Awanui Haparapara No 4B (2017) 167 Waiariki MB 194 (167 WAR 194) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...the individual or body; and (b) shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the appointment of that individual or body would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. … [27] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal considered the Court’s discretion in appointing trustees, referring to the provisions in s 222(2). 2 The Court noted: [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the abil...

10. Roberts v McKenzie - Tokaanu Māori Township 2nd Residue Trust (2017) 371 Aotea MB 133 (371 AOT 133) [pdf, 340 KB]

    ...are outside Ngāti Tuwharetoa and can make further submissions on this if necessary. Respondents’ submissions [39] Counsel submits that per s 237 the Court has the same powers as the High Court in respect to trusts. In line with the Court of Appeal decision in Kain v Hutton counsel submits that when exercising its supervisory function the Court can only be concerned with the welfare of the beneficial owners. Mr Hickman argues that the enduring concern for the applicant is that...