Search Results

1. Warren v Harwood - Hongoeka 7 Block and Lots 2 and 3 on DP 42094 (2007) 197 Aotea MB 299 (197 AOT 299) [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...the Porirua City Council , I am satisfied that the application should be granted. This wi ll provide celiainty of access to the owners of the affected lands, Hongoeka Marae and the Hongoeka Bay community generally. [28] Should any patiy seek to appeal this decision to the Maori Appellate Court or apply for judicial review then I will put my reasons in writing. Pronounced in open Court at 11.i)'; am/~ in Re>'\~""''' ~~:::~ the :2 4~ day of DeCa-...

2. Gray - Estate of William Robinson Hawaikirangi [2019] Chief Judge's MB 123 (2019 CJ 123) [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...(2019 CJ 19-36). 2 Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209). 3 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 130 the interpretation of the law, and it is necessary in the interests of justice to correct its record. For this reason, s 45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw identified eit...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Singh [2019] NZREADT 004 [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...out in ss 134 to 137 of the Act. Such training is to be completed within six months of the date of this decision. [38] 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 _______________...

4. 2021-02-22 Minute - PC8 - Willowridge Developments Ltd - s 281 application [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...where Judge Hassan considers questions of whether s 274 applies should be viewed not with a view to legal nicety, but with the view that submitters and intended parties are “intended to be given a fair opportunity to continue to be heard in plan appeals related to the matters or topics that their submission addresses”. This view is supported by earlier High Court authority albeit in respect of different provisions: see Countdown Properties (Northlands) Ltd v Dunedin City Council...

5. Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 36 [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...of Police (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31. [6.8.4] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. 5 APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS Overview [7] It is true Dr Lohr has not been a model litigant. But few self-represented parties are....

6. Finlay v Baker [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...extent that it is difficult to identify the claimants as subsequent owners of the subject dwelling requiring a subsequent duty of care. 43. I am further assisted in this view by the vulnerability factor in Hamlin. And the comments of the Court of Appeal in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Charterhill Trustees Limited, [2009] NZCA 374 at par 39. Mr Finlay is possibly the least vulnerable person in relation to this building having personally supervised all aspects of its construc...

7. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [2010] NZWHT Wellington 17 [pdf, 108 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-101-000052 [2010] NZWHT WELLINGTON 17 BETWEEN RIVER OAKS FARM LIMITED & C & A M THURNELL & L HORNE AS TRUSTEES OF INGODWE TRUST Claimant AND TIMOTHY OLSSON, CHARLOTTE OLSSON & JOHN CRONIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE PICOLLO TRUST First Respondent AND TIMOTHY OLSSON Second Respondent AND DENTON PERRY Third Respondent AND KENT JARMAN Fourth Respondent AND WARWICK SWEETMAN Fifth Respondent AND MAXI

8. Sade - Miriama Mahanga Whanau Trust (2017) 146 Taitokerau MB 75 (146 TTK 75) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...change of mind is usually insufficient as a ground for termination unless there is an absence of opposition; 8 Larkins v Wi Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159). 9 Ibid, at [27]. 146 Taitokerau MB 79 (b) Termination should be refused where it is likely to result in detriment or create unreasonable disadvantage to affected parties; (c) Evidence of a trust failing to adhere...

9. Brightwell - Okauia B3B1 Block (2017) 135 Waikato Maniapoto MB121 (135 WMN 121) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...MB 130 [27] It is my view that the actions available to the Court now are to consider any review application that might be filed, or to cancel the occupation order pursuant to ss 330 and 330A. I understand that Evelyn Brightwell intends to appeal this decision. In the circumstances I will refrain from taking any further action in relation to the occupation order until the decision of the Māori Appellate Court is to hand. Pronounced in open Court at 11.45am in Hamilton on...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 38 Eden Group Ltd v Jackson [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...hearings are open to the public and can be freely reported. Documents produced in court are available for inspection. However, the High Court Rules recognise that outside of that hearing process (and a brief window of opportunity relating to the appeal period), persons other than the parties need permission to inspect documents held on the court file. The reason for this distinction was described by Toogood J in X v Standards Committee (No 1) of the New Zealand Law Society in the...