14740 items matching your search terms
...[33] In the end result therefore the Tribunal imposes the only penalty open to it which is that of a fine and we impose the maximum available to us of $750. In accordance with s 113 of the 2008 Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s.116 of the 2008 Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 7th day of July 2011 ______________________________ Judge M Hobbs Chairman...
...of the cases noted above is at the extreme end of the range for volume of paper, numbers of parties, and complexity and number of issues. The second case is quite typical of the work of the Environment Court of New Zealand processing and hearing appeals from decisions of councils, and sometimes on direct referral of cases where the Court becomes the first instance hearing body. The consequences are clear for all to see – vast quantities of paper, huge costs in copying, sending...
...dated 5 March 2009 that: i. With the partition of 7B16B the clear land in the north is reduced from about 65 hectares to 30 hectares, and access is somewhat limited. While this would, in our opinion, result in the remaining land being slightly less appealing, the overall effect on value would be minimal – if any. ii. We have determined that the Residual Value of B45B (Pohutu) would be the pre- partition value less the value of 7B16B. Hearing [8] The application was set down fo...
...Wainui on 29 July 1967. That suggests to me that there was a large degree of discussion about this kaupapa and that if owners with interests in the land were concerned about the Māori reservations created by the Court they would have objected or appealed or followed up in some way. There is no evidence of any such concerns being raised at the time or until the last two or so years. Based on the Court record I doubt very much that Auwha Ihaia 87 Taitokerau MB 232 pursued...
...for partition having regard to the nature and importance of the matter. 7 Bhana v Paniora – Wairau North 1B2C (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 139 (69 TTK 139) at [46]. 8 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block (2011) 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). This case concerned an application for partition, refer s 288(2)(b) ibid. 112 Taitokerau 57 owner supports the application. Together those in support hold 29.4% of the shares in the block. [30] As such, only a mino...
...or agent, of rent, purchase money, royalties, or other proceeds of the alienation of land, or of any compensation payable in respect of other revenue derived from the land, affected by any order to which an application under section 45 or an appeal under Part 2 relates. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80dc890d_19_25_se&p=1&id=DLM290914#DLM290914 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw...
...order were amended to 2 11 Aotea MB 346-348 dated 21 December 1989 (11 AOT 346-348) 3 Naera v Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) (2011) Maori Appellate Court MB 316 (2011 APPEAL 316) http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-appellate-court-sittings/2011/Whakapoungakau%2024%20-Tikitere%20Trust-%202011%20APPEAL%20316.pdf http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/...
...serious question to be tried in fact existed could not be brushed over lightly. For example see F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pasture Ltd 10 and Shivas v BTR Nylex Holding NZ Ltd. 11 [14] In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction: 12 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which th...
...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...
...was a “mistake” for the purpose of the section. My understanding of s 28 is that it applies only where the mistake is an essential ingredient of the cause of action – for example, a payment under a mistake of fact or law. In the Court of Appeal case of Vanvi Ltd v Dawson [1980] 1 NZLR 513, Cooke J said that the same provision in the Limitation Act 1939 (UK) had been regarded as applying to actions in quasi-contract for the recovery of money paid by mistake of fact, and to clai...