Search Results

1. Rangihuna v The Trustees of the Te Rimu Trust - Te Rimu Trust (2010) 10 Tairawhiti MB 137 (10 TRW 137) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...10 See In Re Whakapaupakihi 139 Gis 260 where the one man and one vote rule was followed 11 (1995) 18 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 262 (18 APWM 262) 12 (2010) 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2010 APPEAL 55) 10 Tairawhiti MB 145 Middle 4A2A Trust (2010) case is instructive and adopted for this case. It is reproduced below: ... At common law a vote on a show of hands means that each person present and entitled to vote,

2. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...essentially supervisory and I think that the responsibility should be treated as being significantly less than that of the principal author of the damage. 6.5 In the case of Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 the Court of Appeal considered a similar situation, where the owner of a defective building succeeded against the builder and the local authority. The Court apportioned responsibility between these two defendants as 80% to the Builder and 20% to the...

3. Pope v Human Rights Commission (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just. (4) This rule does not affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction. [33] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd at [89] the Court of Appeal conveniently explained these different grounds: [89] The grounds of strike out listed in r 15.1(1)(b)–(d) concern the misuse of the court’s processes. Rule 15.1(1)(b), which deals with pleadings that are likely to cause prejudice or...

4. HR v OW and CT LCRO 79/2014 (18 May 2015) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [35] Both parties attended a review hearing in [City] on 2...

5. AZ v YX LCRO 175 / 2010 (25 March 2011) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...revised estimate figures”. [83] An estimate is a representation that costs will be in the vicinity of a given sum and all due care must be exercised when providing same. See J and J Abrams Ltd v Ancliffe [1978] 2 NZLR 420. [84] The Court of Appeal has also made some pertinent comments concerning estimates in Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners [2002] NZLR 156 at para 49. In that case the Court stated:- 14 “Second, the question of loss or otherwise due to excess over...

6. Kartikeya v Fernyhough [2014] NZIACDT 44 (03 April 2014) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Registrar has expressed the view that the decision in Geldenhuys v Yap DC Christchurch, CIV 2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014 is potentially relevant to the determination of the present complaint. [17] The Geldenhuys decision is presently subject to an appeal to the High Court. [18] The Registrar has sought to be heard on the potential implications in the present matter. [19] Counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the grounds the effect of the decision has little or no r...

7. Rohipa v Campbell - Estate of Te Maungarongo Wiremu or Morgan Kingi (2008) 184 Gisborne 294 (184 GIS 294) [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...accept her as a whangai. Acceptance by siblings and other members of the whanau is, in terms of the expert evidence of Dr Mahuika, a key element in ascertaining whether a person is a whangai. There is no such acceptance in this case. 53 10 Rotorua Appeal Minute Books 43-54 184 Gisborne MB 309 [33] The evidence also demonstrates that she referred to her older aunts and uncles as just that. They remained her uncles and aunties. [34] There is evidence that this whanau have a hist...

8. E90 Graeme McIndoe - Urban Design - RE – Applicant [pdf, 967 KB]

   ...5.5 and 5.6 are extras on Halsey Wharf. I also note that on one hand these requirements might be considered a restriction but considered in another way they give certainty of provision. 5.20 Mr Groeschner is also concerned that the “visually appealing media and hospitality structures on the eastern end of Halsey Wharf may be higher than the flags themselves”.12 That is unlikely, as the flag poles are respectively 35m and 25m above the wharf level, and they are in an area where t...

9. LCRO 341/2013 QE v ML (nee BM) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...2 Above n 1. 3 Dorbu v the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal HC Auckland CIV-2009-404- 7381, 11 May 2011 at [17]. 4 At [20]. 5 [18] Those comments were noted with approval by the Court of Appeal in Deliu v National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society where the Court said:5 It is of course well-established that the Tribunal is not entitled to determine that facts in issue are proved by accepting without inquiry the

10. Taka v Watene - Koparakore A32A2B3B (2017) 34 Tākitimu MB 163 (34 TKT 163) [pdf, 427 KB]

    ...had been moved on to the land, there was no suggestion that the house does not remain fixed to the land. So, I will 17 Rudolph v Reti – Otetao B3A2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143) 18 See Sione – Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275); Bidois – Te Puna 154D 3B 2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (12 AP 102); and Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 64 Tākitimu MB...