Search Results

1. [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...

2. 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]...

3. 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...

4. LCRO 193/2017 AA v BB and CC (29 November 2019) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...to how the events had relevance to the conduct complaints he was advancing. [135] To the extent that Mr AA was able to usefully reference particular events relevant to the conduct issues, the concern he expressed was that Mr BB and Ms CC had permitted and encouraged a witness to produce evidence to the Court in circumstances where it was manifestly apparent to them that the evidence was false and misleading. Mr AA concluded his submissions at hearing, with argument that he believe...

5. [2020] NZSSAA 4 (28 April 2020) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...ordinary residence in Singapore he must have met the requirements the Supreme Court identified; it could not happen by default. Key elements in the Supreme Court’s reasoning we must apply to XXXX’s circumstances were: (a) The Act does not permit residence in two countries simultaneously.24 (b) The meaning of the words “ordinarily resident” mean “a place in which someone resides”, “home for the time being”.25 (c) The necessary degree of permanence or habituality...

6. UY v Bunbury LCRO 17 / 2012 (4 March 2013) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...considerable thought as to whether or not this matter (and others referred to in this decision) should be the subject of charges before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. However, I have determined in this case that the maximum fine permitted by the Law Practitioners Act 1982 should be imposed as Dr Bunbury’s failure to consider his obligations to [Company A] and Mr UY in these matters is serious. [76] In addition, Dr Bunbury is censured in relation to this con...

7. George v ACC [2012] NZACA 13 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...was an earner and by this means avoid the effect of the Giltrap decision, now upheld by the High Court in Vandy. It was quite wrong, he submitted, that a decision in 1981 assessed on its merits by the appellant’s solicitor at the time, could be permitted a review 29 years later. None of the usual mitigating factors applied, and this was a case of a decision 9 ultimately accepted at the time on its merits, now being challenged for an ancillary purpose. [46] Regarding prej...

8. Taueki - Horowhenua XIB41 North A3A and 3B1 (2007) 193 Aotea MB 232 (193 AOT 232) [pdf, 4.1 MB]

   ...application and the opportunity to make submissions. Their pm1icipation in the process makes this plain. No altel'llative offers [35] Ms Taueki in her written submission intended for the hearing on 12 June 2007 argued that the timefi'ame permitted by the COlll1 was insufficient and that further time was necessary. In any event she contended that the application should be dismissed until such time as various matters raised in her submission had been addressed by the incor...

9. Hoban v Attorney-General [2022] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...taken from Butler at [17.20.3] and [17.20.12]: [17.20.3] Further, where matters of social policy are in issue courts have also been willing to accept that the state is not required to tackle all aspects of a problem at once: incremental measures are permitted. Distinctions required by international instruments are also likely to be upheld, though they are not beyond scrutiny. [Footnote citations omitted] [17.20.12] … the range of factual inequality within society is so great that one...

10. Tapsell - Succession to Pera Wikiriwhi or Pera Matataia [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1002 (2021 CJ 1002) [pdf, 485 KB]

    ...not required to give effect to the arrangement which in large measure was compiled by the District Registrar. 27 200 Rotorua MB 264 (200 ROT 264). 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1022 Kupu whakataunga Decision/Orders [22] As the law permitted the Court to confirm such a family arrangement, the Court was entitled to do so pursuant to s 213A(2). [23] Thus, I do not consider that the applicant has proven the case on the balance of probabilities that there was an error made...