Search Results

1. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Deobhakta [2014] NZLCDT 50 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...corruption in NZLS”. [6] Mr Clancy for the Standards Committee opposed the request for adjournment. He submitted that the practitioner had been aware of the Tribunal’s decision since December 2013 and thus had time to exercise his right to appeal the decision and had not done so. He said that there was no prejudice to the practitioner in declining the request, because the issue of possible strike-off had been extant since May 2014 at a time when Mr Mabey,QC was representing...

2. CAC 10043 v Brooker - Penalty Decision [2012] NZREADT 31 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...that a fine of $500 would be the appropriate penalty for Ms Brooker. We order, therefore, that she pay the sum of $500 by way of a fine. [16] We draw the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act which provides for the right of appeal to the High Court. 5 DATED at AUCKLAND this 11th day of June 2012 ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member

3. [2018] NZEmpC 12 McNabb v Silver Fern Farms Beef Ltd [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Court may order the giving of security for costs if it considers that such an order is just in all the circumstances.9 [16] Overall, the Court needs to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the exercise. As the Court of Appeal observed in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:10 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for su...

4. [2012] NZREADT 62A - Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 10063) v Sant Raj (31 July 2012) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...circumstances stated therein I cease to be the licensed salesperson member of REAA. Having regard to this fact REAA is not obliged to lay charges on me. Furthermore there is no READT number decision of CAC dated 20 March 2012 and the right of appeal provide 20 working days after the date of notice whereas the letter from REAA dated 20 March 2012 under response to charge allows 10 working days from receiving the letter. These are matters of concern which need addressing, why both l...

5. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 Trust (2014) 32 Takitimu MB 63 (32 TKT 63) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...hearings before this Court, as far as I have been able to ascertain in recent times, took place in 2005 before Deputy Chief Judge Isaac, as he then was. As foreshadowed, directions and decisions were issued and were subjected to an unsuccessful appeal. Hearings have been held before me since 2011 and are ongoing due to the complexity of the issues currently before the Court, the lack of readiness to proceed on the part of some of the parties and the dearth of records critical to the...

6. Rata - Succession to Paretuaoroa Paretekorae and Haki Rata [2021] Chief Judge's MB 106 (2021 CJ 106) [pdf, 424 KB]

   ...& Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block.7 I do not propose to repeat those principles again in this judgment. [21] However, it is important to stress how the Chief Judge’s jurisdiction is to be exercised. This was described by the Court of Appeal in Inia v Julian (2020) as follows:8 … the powers vested in the Chief Judge under s 44(1) of the Act fall in two parts. The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of...

7. Barnes v Adlam – Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 127 Waiariki MB 184 (127 WAR 184) [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...The results of the voting on the three options were: 3 Adlam v Savage – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec No. 2B2A Parish of Matata (2015) 2015 Māori Appellate Court MB 59 (2015 APPEAL 59). 4 Trustees of the Otonga Whānau Trust v The Trustees of Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec 2B No. 2B No 2A Parish of Matata (2014) 95 Waiariki MB 176 (95 WAR 176). 127 Wa...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 44 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2] in relation to the principle generally; and, in relation to access to Court documents, see the discussion in Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2017] NZHC 3049; and Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2017] NZHC 3026 upheld on appeal in Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2018] NZCA 460. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2017/0193/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM7379817&DLM7379817 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2017/0193/latest/link.aspx?id=D...

9. Auckland Transport 156 [PDF, 64 KB]

   ...Court ENV-2017-AKL-000156 Auckland Registry Under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) And in the matter of an application under section 274 of the RMA and an appeal under section 156(3) of the Act Between C N Barbour Family Trust Appellant and Auckland Council Respondent and Auckland Transport Section 274 Party Notice of Auckland Transport’s wish to be party to proc...

10. D v Secretary for Justice 25 September 2016 NZRA 001/2016 [pdf, 46 KB]

    ...active involvement will encompass such steps as researching the law, interviewing witness, cross-examination, making submissions, making opening/closing addresses, appearing at sentence, and appearances in support of or in response to an appeal. Clause 4 (a) of the Schedule is directed to experience working on approval level 2 criminal proceedings. It is silent as to whether or not that experience has to be gained after an applicant has been approved as a provider of legal...