Search Results

1. Horan – Hiwarau C (2013) 70 Waiariki 61 (70 WAR 61) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...the partition would not affect the residual value of Hiwarau C, apart from the removal value and that the Pukepuke whanau would not get anything more than was originally amalgamated into Hiwarau C. 70 Waiariki MB 66    [16] I note that a resource consent report was also obtained from the Opotiki District Council Environment and Planning Manger. That report recommends consent be given subject to a Māori Land Court partition order being made and other requirements as to subdivi...

2. Matthews v Matthews - Estate of Graham Ngahina Matthews [2016] Māori Appellate Court 212 (2016 APPEAL 212) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate MB 216 (7 APWH 216). 3 Nicholls v Trustees of W T Nicholls Trust - Part Papaaroha 6B Block [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 2 (2014 APPEAL 2). 2016 Maori Appellate Court MB 217 and resources the appellant has given to the appeal and their degree of success; (b) the appellants’ total legal costs are $40,767.50 (incl GST) excluding $1,421.50 for disbursements. That total includes 20 hours for briefing and settling aff...

3. AJ v BJ LCRO 258 / 2011 (18 July 2013) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...having reduced his fee, the Practitioner confirmed that the Respondent had in fact paid the lower fee, adding that although he did not resile from the view that the fee was fair and reasonable, commercial reality dictated that no further time or resources ought to be spent on that matter. [18] A review hearing was held on 23 August 2012, attended by the Practitioner and by the Respondent. I explained to the parties that the review process offered the opportunity for all aspects of...

4. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...had been unwilling to negotiate with DN about fees. DG had reached an impasse. BZ had the files, an obligation to meet BU’s fees but no funds, no security and no incentive to increase her exposure in having to meet BU’s fees from her own resources. BU had significant unpaid costs, no file and no instructions. DG had instructions, an incomplete copy of DN’s file, increasing costs and a rapidly approaching hearing. DN owed substantial fees to BU and DG, could add nothing fu...

5. 2017 NZSSAA 026 (12 June 2017) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...qualifying for the benefit. The Chief Executive has a discretion to grant the benefit, even where these two criteria are satisfied. [11] In Morgan the Court noted the relevance of s(1A)(c)(i) of the Act which provides that people should use the resources available to them before seeking financial support under the Act. The issues [12] The issues that we must determine are: a) Did Mr XXXX have an income or deprive himself of income during the relevant period? b) If...

6. Briefing for incoming Minister 2017 - Votes Justice and Courts [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...and the courts. The Ministry provides registry and administrative services necessary to support judicial administration of the court system and judicial decision-making. Administrative support includes transcription services, finance, ICT, human resources and funding and support for the Institute of Judicial Studies, which provides continuing legal education and development. We must provide these administrative services in the most efficient way possible. In delivering services, the...

7. LCRO 139/2015 WN v YL and TM [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...that $2,685.50 remained unpaid and proceedings were filed in the District Court. She advised that proceedings were: … discontinued as it became clear that Mr WN would press the matter to hearing and that in terms of time, personal and financial resources, this would not be a useful course of action for the firm at that time. Mr WN’s complaints and the Standards Committee determination [29] Mr WN’s complaint to the Lawyers Complaints Services is dated 11 November 2015....

8. Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACA 9 [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...be submitted to the High Court, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason. Questions of fact could meet this criterion. [27] In exercising its discretion, the Authority is mindful of the proper use of the scarce resources of the High Court. Leave is not given as a matter of course. It is for the applicant to show that the interests of justice require that leave be given (Kenyon v Accident Compensation Corporation [2002] NZAR 385 (HC) at [15], O’N...

9. [2011] NZCA 56 CA687/2009 New Zealand Dairy Workers' Union Inc v Open Country Cheese Company Ltd [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...taken some familiarisation. Some parts of the cheese plant, however, were identical to that used by the Dairy Company at its other factories. [10] Mr Slade’s evidence was that Mr Fankhauser directed him to make available the Cheese Company resources to induct the Dairy Company employees and the plant for them to run it; that in his capacity as the Cheese Company’s general manager he provided access to the plant and made it available; and that, in conjunction with the Dairy Com...

10. [2007] NZEmpC CRC19/07 Abernethy v Dynea NZ Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

    ...pragmatic reasons for this decision. [64] As already noted as an indicator of statutory interpretation, the parties are entitled to expect a prompt resolution of their case18. The raising of a preliminary issue inevitably takes up time and resources and if a challenge to such a preliminary issue brings the parties to the Court, it is sensible for the matter to remain here for resolution rather than having to return to the Authority for the matter to be reopened. [65] The deci...