Search Results

1. Tohiariki – Section 1F No 2 Parish of Katikati (2013) 54 Waikato Maniapoto MB 31 (54 WMN 31) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...tackle each of the three steps separately, often the steps overlap in terms of the evidence that applies to each. 10 Whaanga v Niania– Anewa Block (2011) 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) at [38] 54 Waikato Maniapoto MB 36 [17] In addition the Court must at all times have regard to the principles set out in the Preamble to TTWMA, s 2 and s 17. Furthermore when assessing the question of what is necessary pur...

2. Andree v Appelhof - Oriwa 1B3E (2024) 273 Waiaraki MB 56 (273 WAR 56) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...land without conflict. Neither party wishes to sell, and Nellie simply wants to be able to plant some roots for her children 2 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 287(2). 3 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) at [39]. 273 Waiariki MB 60 and her mokopuna to enjoy their taonga. Having regard to the nature and importance of the matter, I am satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of support amongst the owners. [16] As to whethe...

3. Surnamecrown v Haig-Clarke - Kaiaua 1 (2022) 269 Waiariki MB 20 (269 WAR 20) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...Kupu Whakatau The decision [19] The Court has no evidence that the trust is failing to adhere to their terms of trust and there is poor accountability. 3 Larkins v Wi Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159). 269 Waiariki MB 25 [20] Termination of the whānau trust will clearly result in detriment or create unreasonable disadvantage to Jenelle, a daughter of Wakarara Potae Te Aute Haig-Clarke and a beneficiary of the wh...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 174 Udovenko v Offshore Marine Services (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...matters which were not actually determined by the Authority, provided they were part of the Authority’s investigation. [11] An overly technical approach is not to be taken. That would enable form to trump substance. And as the Court of Appeal emphasised in Thornton Hall 1 [2012] NZEmpC 156. 2 At [26] and [27]. 3 [2012] NZEmpC 2. Manufacturing v Shanton Apparel Ltd, 4 in dealing with an application for leave to...

5. ZA v YB LCRO 23/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...to his discovery obligations. Costs were reserved, with the Commissioner seeking a substantial amount from the plaintiffs, as well as from Dr Muir, who was not a party to the litigation. His Honour declined to recuse himself. [40] The Court of Appeal set out the “principles which govern this area of the law” referring to the necessity for impartiality, the duty to sit, presumptive and apparent bias. Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was referred to as encompassi...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 226 Sheath v The Selwyn Foundation [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...6 NZEMPU v Carter Holt Harvey, above n 3 at [38]. and inexpensive first instance hearings of disputes and the fact that an order for removal by its very nature deprives the parties of a step in the appeal process. Each case will be decided on its own circumstances. The present case is, however, an instance where an order for removal should be made. The applicant, Ms Sheath, is accordingly granted special leave of the Court for an orde

7. LCRO 2/2019 RCN and OCN as Trustees v MA, JS, LB and GD (27 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act):22 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

8. CAC20003 v Cooper [2013] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...the requirements of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (or any successor legislation) and its regulations as the then Registrar of the Authority may direct. [19] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Mr...

9. [2010] NZEmpC 39 Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...acceptance. There was, for example, an earlier Calderbank offer made to Mr Lewis in May 2008 when the Board’s solicitors believed he was advised by a senior and experienced employment law practitioner but which offer was rejected. [14] The Court of Appeal has counselled the Employment Court to be “steely” in relation to Calderbank offers.3 [15] In these circumstances, I consider that Mr Lewis should not be entitled to reimbursement of any costs incurred after his refusal of...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 133 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 89 KB]

    ...application for leave has been made too late if the fixture is to be retained, as has been the defendant’s consistent stance including as recently as last week when it opposed an adjournment of the case when that issue was before the Court of Appeal. [13] Although the interlocutory application currently proposed by the defendant has been made too late so far as the fixture (now less than a week hence) is concerned, that is not to say that it cannot be renewed when the issue of cos...