Search Results

1. Hulton Patchell Limited v Mitchell - Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust (2010) 5 Waiariki MB 246 (5 WAR 246) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...general meeting in which a resolution was passed confirming the resolution made at the 2006 meeting. A majority of 124 owners supported the resolution and 8 opposed it; (b) the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in cases where the statute permits successive applications as determined by the Court of Appeal The Trustees of Pukeroa Oruawhata v Te Kiri Whero Ewa Makareta Mitchell [2008] NZCA 518. Section 244 does not contain any limit on the intervals at which applications can be...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC revised evidence chief Shumane tracked [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...berth holders, will be allowed to enter the restricted area at the cul-de-sac. I agree with Mr Mitchell that such vehicles will be able to enter the marina’s parking facility for drop-off and pick-up while non-berth holders will not even be permitted to enter the cul-de-sac for any drop-off or pick-up. 30. While I maintain the view that this level of drop-off and pick-up activities will occur within the marina’s parking facility I no longer have the view that this volume is in...

3. Leef v Leef - Panguru A47B (2015) 113 Taitokerau MB 11 (113 TTK 11) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...and sanitary sewerage disposal unit, septic tank and soakage fields and connection pipes to the building is excluded from the sale” (sic). These were to be left in the land. Other clauses addressed the fact that Robert was to take care of all permits etc for removal of the house and was to be responsible for protecting other improvements on the land. [29] Robert paid the purchase price but did not remove the house. It remains there today. Instead, Robert says that after purc...

4. Williams v Attorney-General [2024] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any...

5. [2010] NZEmpC 113 Service and Food Workers Union & Ors v OCS Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...the phrase “redundancy entitlements” mean a single undefined redundancy entitlement, multiple undefined redundancy entitlements, or a potentially unlimited suite of redundancy entitlements? • if bargaining for redundancy entitlements is permitted, does this include bargaining for such redundancy entitlements as have been addressed specifically by the parties in their employment agreements? [26] In these circumstances of absence of legislative clarity, analysis of the proces...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 208 ABC v DEF [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...terms are final and binding on, and enforceable by, the parties, and no party may seek to bring those terms before the Authority or the Court. The issue may then be which provision of the Act should take precedence: cl 12, sch 3 of the Act which permits the exercise of a discretion with regard to non-publication, or the provisions of s 149 stating that the terms are final, binding and enforceable? The issues raised by ABC and referred to previously may also fall for consideration at...

7. Daunton v CAC 10065 & Morgan [2012] NZREADT 71 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...advice from their lawyer. A licensee need be no more involved than, helpfully, facilitating those procedures, particularly if he or she still holds a key to the property. There was reference to clause 3.2.(2) of the sale contract, but that only permits a pre-settlement inspection entry to the property by the purchaser to confirm compliance with any agreement of the vendor to carry out work on the property and the chattels and fixtures. In any case, a perceived non-compliance of the con...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 056 Auckland Council v Auckland Council [pdf, 663 KB]

   ...your own adversary: there is no real controversy to be adjudicated and no real basis on which you can enforce any right or duty against yourself. In contractual terms, you could waive any right you may have against yourself; in tort, you could permit the tortious act and rely on the doctrine that what happens willingly does not amount to injury. [30] Having stated that, we conclude from the submissions made to us and our own research that there appears to be no clear authority for t...

9. Gardiner v Corringe - Tauwhao Te Ngare Block (2008) 93 Tauranga MB 63 (93 T 63) [pdf, 4.7 MB]

   ...to stock losses from a respondent Maori Land Trust. Judge Harvey accepted the submissions made on behalf of the trustees that issues relating to moveable chattels such as stock do not fall within the ambit of section 18(1)(d). He thought that to permit the applicant's claims to advance would be to place a meaning on the phrase "relates to", as used in section 18(1)( d), that travels beyond the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. Defendants' Arguments [16]...

10. Reedy v Atkins - Waitangi A1 A1 (2019) 76 Tākitimu MB 54 (76 TKT 54) [pdf, 362 KB]

    ...interest in the land had a hui on 11 August 2004 to express their opposition. They do not support the gifting and appear to be dismayed at Mr Ashby’s actions. They are entitled to their viewpoint. Those opposing the applications were also permitted to make their views known to the judge. They did so but he was not persuaded by their arguments. He then exercised his discretion in favour of Mr Ashby. We do not detect any error in the judge’s approach when disposing of these ap...