IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A
|
|
- Reynard Gallagher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Akura Lands Trust BETWEEN AND MANU SHARON TE WHATA Appellant ANDREW PAHORO PAKU Respondent Hearing: 10 February 2011 (Heard at Hastings) Court: Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox Judge S T A Milroy Judge D J Ambler Appearances: Mrs M S Te Whata in person Mr Kershaw for the Respondent Judgment: 23 February 2011 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT Copies to Counsel: J W Kershaw, Gawith Burridge, PO Box 454, Masterton jock@gawith.co.nz TE WHATA V PAKU MAC 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 [23 February 2011]
2 Introduction [1] This is an appeal from an order of Judge Coxhead dated 26 October 2010 removing the trustees of the Akura Lands Trust ( the Trust ). [2] We heard the appeal on 10 February At the conclusion of the hearing we varied Judge Coxhead s order and referred the application back to the lower Court to address the question of the appointment of replacement trustees with our reasons to follow. We now set out our reasons. Background [3] On 6 October 2003 Deputy Chief Judge Isaac (as he then was) made orders under ss 44 and 47 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 ( the Act ) amending succession orders made in 1973 and 1974 in respect of the Māori land interests of the late Taawi Takaimaro Pineamine. The effect of the 2003 orders was that the Respondent, Mr Andrew Paku, was recognised as Mr Pineamine s son. As a result, Mr Paku became a significant owner in Akura No 18, Akura 1A1B, Akura 1C3B2 and Akura 4F Section 3, all of which are administered by the Trust. [4] Mr Paku s claim to being the son of Mr Pineamine was opposed by other land owners and their whanau. Some of those persons continue to dispute Mr Paku s whakapapa and entitlement however, no one has challenged the 2003 orders. [5] Subsequent to the 2003 orders Mr Paku did not receive any information from the Trust in relation to its activities, the use of the land, its financial position or the distribution of dividends. On 14 June 2007 Mr Kershaw, the solicitor for Mr Paku and his counsel before us, wrote to the Trust seeking that information. The Trust did not reply. [6] On 3 September 2009 Mr Paku applied to the lower Court for an order under s 238 of the Act requiring the Trust to provide a report on the administration of the Trust and an accounting of rental received and payments made for and on behalf of the Trust. The application was set down for hearing on 19 February 2010 and the Court directed the trustees to file a report addressing the issues raised in Mr Kershaw s letter of 14 June 2007 and other aspects of the Trust s activities and financial position. The trustees or their 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 56
3 representative were also directed to appear at Court to answer any questions in relation to the report. [7] The application came before Judge Coxhead on 19 February The Appellant, Mrs Manu Te Whata, who was also the chairperson of the Trust, produced a report to the Court on the day of the hearing. Among other things, the report explained that the whanau of Akura did not recognise Mr Paku as an owner and for that reason the Trust had not made information available to Mr Paku. During the hearing Mrs Te Whata reiterated the Trust s stance that it did not recognise Mr Paku as an owner. This stance stemmed from the dispute over whether Mr Paku was Mr Pineamine s son. The application was adjourned to enable Mr Kershaw and Mr Paku to have an opportunity to consider the Trust s report. [8] The application came before Judge Coxhead again on 22 April 2010 and 10 June At both hearings the focus of the discussion was the Trust s unwillingness to recognise Mr Paku as an owner. On both occasions Judge Coxhead indicated that, in light of the Trust s position, one of the options for the Court was to remove the trustees. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing on 10 June 2010 Judge Coxhead adjourned the application to a further hearing to expressly consider the removal of trustees in the following terms: What I am going to do is I am going to adjourn this matter for another hearing and the question at the next hearing will be; (1) Can the trustees tell the Court why they should not be removed? [9] The final hearing took place on 26 October Three of the trustees appeared, namely, Sandra Reiri, Kempton Tuirirangi and Raewyn Thompson. Mrs Te Whata did not attend though she had provided to the Court a copy of a letter dated 19 October 2010 to Mr Paku. The relevant part of the letter reads as follows:...we are writing this letter to inform you Andrew and your whanau through your lawyer Mr Kershaw, that, we the trustee s of Akura Lands Trust will treat all shareholders/beneficiaries including Andrew as a shareholder/beneficiary of Akura Lands trust whanau/hapu and intend to pay any dividends or beneficial entitlement payable to you in relation to your current shareholdings interests. Although the Maori Land Court has acknowledged Andrew as a natural son and to remove all possible doubts as to Andrews whanau connection to other shareholder/beneficiary, I hereby invite Andrew to take part in a DNA test to produce evidence that Andrew, does, in fact have the whanau toto (blood) connection. 1 2 See 2 Takitimu MB 138 (2 TKT 138), at ; 3 Takitimu MB 124 (3 TKT 124), at 130, 132 and Takitimu MB 163 (5 TKT 163) Maori Appellate Court MB 57
4 If agreed to by Andrew and whānau we will offer our own blood for a DNA sample to be matched against Andrew. We also offer to pay for half the expense of the test fees. If however the DNA test results return a negative result then it is expected that Andrew or whoever receives the dividend or beneficial entitlement, this is to be paid back to the Akura Lands Trust whānau/hapū. The result of the DNA test should once and for all sort out any further disputes as to whether Andrew is in fact a blood relative. Assuming the results come back in favour of Andrew and does in fact confirm Andrews Toto to the whānau/hapū. [10] Judge Coxhead asked the trustees to clarify whether the letter meant that the recognition of Mr Paku was conditional upon him undertaking the DNA testing. Mrs Thompson confirmed that that was the case. [11] At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Coxhead issued an oral decision invoking s 240 of the Act and removing the trustees on the primary ground that the trustees were in breach of their duty to act fairly to all beneficiaries. The Court s orders were expressed in the following terms: 3...Therefore I think that that is serious enough for the removal of the trustees, the Court decision therefore is that the trustees will be removed and I will ask the case manager to enquire with the Māori Trustee as to whether they would take up the trusteeship and take up the appointment as the trustee for the Akura Trust Lands... So those are the orders of the Court and the direction is that the case manager is to enquire with the Māori Trustee as whether they will be accepting of this appointment and that is to be done as soon as possible and that is the conclusion of the matter. [12] Mrs Te Whata appeals Judge Coxhead s decision and is supported by her fellow trustees Mrs Reiri, Mr Tuirirangi, Mrs Thompson and Michael Allen Jnr. Of the remaining trustees, Joanne Hayes does not support the appeal and nothing has been heard of Michael Allen Snr. Mrs Te Whata says that these two trustees have in fact resigned. Case for the Appellant [13] Mrs Te Whata did not seek to challenge Judge Coxhead s reasons for removing the trustees. Rather, she sought to explain her non-attendance at the final hearing and to say that the letter of the 19 October 2010 had been misunderstood and that recognition of Mr Paku was not conditional on DNA testing. She said that the trustees were now prepared to abide 3 5 Takitimu MB 163 (5 TKT 163), at 176 and Maori Appellate Court MB 58
5 the Court s orders. Furthermore, she referred to a meeting of owners held on 27 November 2010, after Judge Coxhead s decision, which supported the continuation of the trustees. Case for the Respondent [14] Mr Kershaw asked the Court to uphold Judge Coxhead s decision. He argued that the combination of the Trust s report of 19 February 2010, the history of the s 238 application before the Court and the Trust s letter of 19 October 2010 presented Judge Coxhead with sufficient grounds to remove the trustees. In response to issues raised by this Court, Mr Kershaw argued that the trustees had sufficient notice of the possibility that they would be removed and that Judge Coxhead was entitled to move from s 238 to s 240 by reason of s 37(3) of the Act. As for the question of the appointment of the Māori Trustee, Mr Paku was not insisting on that and Mr Kershaw agreed that the owners should have an opportunity to express a view on replacement trustees before the Court makes any appointment. Discussion [15] In Kacem v Bashir 4 the Supreme Court recently commented on Austin Nicholls & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar 5 and the appellate approach. The Court reiterated the principles that apply to a general appeal and clarified that a general appeal is to be distinguished from an appeal against a decision made in the exercise of a discretion. The Court confirmed that the criteria for a successful appeal against a decision made in the exercise of a discretion are: (1) error of law or principle; (2) taking account of irrelevant considerations; (3) failing to take account of a relevant consideration; or (4) the decision is plainly wrong. 6 [16] The removal of trustees under s 240 is a decision made in the exercise of a discretion. Judge Coxhead was entitled to use the powers under s 240 in accordance with s 37(3) and we are satisfied that he gave sufficient notice to the trustees of his intention to do so. The failure of the trustees to abide the 2003 orders and to act impartially towards Mr Paku were sufficient grounds to warrant their removal. Further, it was open to Judge Coxhead to interpret the letter of 19 October 2010 as meaning that the trustees recognition of Mr Paku was conditional upon him undertaking the DNA testing Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112. Austin Nicholls & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103. Kacem v Bashir at para [2] Maori Appellate Court MB 59
6 [17] We do not consider that we can or should take into account Mrs Te Whata s interpretation of the letter as relayed to us at the appellate hearing or the views of the owners meeting of 27 November First, we must exercise our appellate function on the basis of the material that was before Judge Coxhead unless the grounds are made out to grant leave to adduce further evidence: rule 173 of the Māori Land Court Rules Mrs Te Whata did not seek leave to adduce further evidence and, in any event, the grounds were not made out to grant leave in terms of the recognised criteria. 7 Second, the meeting was called by Mrs Te Whata and some of her fellow trustees even though they had been removed as trustees and is thereby tainted. [18] Accordingly, there is no basis to interfere with Judge Coxhead s conclusion that the grounds were made out to remove the trustees. [19] However, the effect of Judge Coxhead s decision was to remove the trustees immediately prior to any replacement trustees being appointed. That left the Trust in a hiatus. That aspect of the decision was plainly wrong. The Court should never consciously leave a trust without trustees. [20] In our view, in the absence of suitable replacement trustees being available to be appointed immediately, whether interim or permanent, Judge Coxhead had to adjourn the application to a further hearing to consider the appointment of replacement trustees. Any order removing the trustees should have been subject to the appointment of replacement trustees. If Judge Coxhead considered that the trustees to be removed should be restricted in what they could do in the meantime, then an injunction could have issued. [21] Furthermore, there is the question of the intended appointment of the Māori Trustee. The minute of 26 October 2010 suggests that, provided that the Māori Trustee consented to his appointment, Judge Coxhead intended to appoint the Māori Trustee without a further hearing. In our view that approach was also wrong at law. Section 222(2)(b) provides: 222 Appointment of trustees...(2) The Court, in deciding whether to appoint any individual or body to be a trustee of a trust constituted under this Part of this Act, 7 We rely on Dragevich v Martinovich [1969] NZLR 306; Whareongaonga v Skuse Whareongaonga 5 (1973) 30 Gisborne Appellate Court MB 158 (30 APGS 158); Hoko Papamoa 2A1 (2003) 20 Waikato- Maniapoto Appellate Court MB 167 (20 APWM 167) Maori Appellate Court MB 60
7 ... (b) Shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the appointment of that individual or body would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [22] Section 222(2)(b) requires the Court to gauge the views of the owners. Ordinarily, that will be following a meeting of owners. In rare circumstances the Court may gauge the views of the owners during a hearing. But neither occurred here. An argument may be put forward that the Court can invoke s 237 of the Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to appoint a trustee without first gauging the support of the owners, but that can only be in extraordinary circumstances. After all, such a step would be against the weight of the Preamble and ss 2 and 17 of the Act which promote the views of the owners. In any event, there is no suggestion that extraordinary circumstances existed for the Court to overlook providing the owners with an opportunity to express a view on replacement trustees. Even Mr Kershaw did not advocate that. [23] Accordingly, we conclude that, although the grounds were made out to remove the trustees, Judge Coxhead should have adjourned the application to a further hearing for the owners to express their views on the question of replacement trustees and for the Court to then remove the trustees simultaneously with appointing replacement trustees. Ancillary matters [24] There are two ancillary matters that require comment. [25] First, notwithstanding Judge Coxhead s order removing the trustees on 26 October 2010 the trustees continued to act by convening a meeting of trustees on 27 October 2010, effecting payment of accounts, effecting payment of the security for costs ordered against Mrs Te Whata and convening a purported special general meeting of owners on 27 November On 7 February 2011 we addressed the trustees actions by issuing an interim injunction. 8 The fact that we have now concluded that Judge Coxhead should not have immediately removed the trustees does not thereby retrospectively validate the trustees subsequent actions. Judge Coxhead s order of 26 October 2010 was effective immediately see s 41(2) and, as per our decision, his order is varied as from 10 February Therefore, between 26 October 2010 and 10 February 2011 the trustees were removed and some have acted unlawfully. The trustees are by this decision restored but in a caretaker role only and subject to the interim injunction. 8 Te Whata Akura Lands Trust (2011) 2011 Māori Appellate Court MB 39 (2011 APPEAL 39) Maori Appellate Court MB 61
8 [26] Second, we are obliged to comment on the manner in which the minute of 26 October 2010 was expressed. Unfortunately, the minute was ambiguous as to whether the order removing the trustees had been made though we resolved that it had, was unclear as to whether or not the appointment of the Māori Trustee was to be made in Chambers or at a further hearing and did not expressly invoke ss 37(3) and 240 in relation to the orders made. Best practice dictates that the Court s minutes clearly set out the statutory provision relied on for any orders, the exact nature of the orders and, if matters remain pending, whether the Court will deal with those matters in Chambers or at a further hearing. Orders [27] Pursuant to ss 56(1)(c) and 73 there is an order varying the order removing the trustees on 26 October 2010 to be conditional on an order of the lower Court appointing replacement trustees. [28] Pursuant to s 56(1)(e) the application is referred back to the lower Court for a rehearing to consider the appointment of replacement trustees following the meeting of owners which is to be held on 19 March The Registrar is directed to facilitate the meeting of owners and report on the outcome to the lower Court in advance of the rehearing. The meeting of owners will need to consider and vote on replacement trustees, whether that be the Māori Trustee or others. It is a matter for the lower Court whether any of the trustees removed may be reappointed as trustees. [29] Pursuant to s 19(1)(b) the interim injunction made by this Court on 7 February 2011 prohibiting the trustees from paying any funds out of the Trust s bank account is varied to allow for payment of the costs associated with the holding of the meeting of owners on 19 March 2011 but is otherwise continued pending the appointment of replacement trustees and transfer of authorisation for operation of the bank account to the replacement trustees. [30] Pursuant to s 64(1) these orders take effect on 10 February Costs [31] The appellant and respondent are to file any submissions on costs by 9 March Maori Appellate Court MB 62
9 [32] The security for costs ordered of $ was initially paid out of the Trust s funds. On 7 February 2011 we directed Mrs Te Whata to personally tender the $ on the morning of the hearing, which she did. As a result, the Court now holds $1, by way of security for costs. That situation needs to be corrected. Accordingly, we direct the Registrar to effect payment of $ to the Trust by way of reimbursement of the first payment. The balance of $ will remain as security for costs pending our decision on costs. Dated this 23 rd day of February C L Fox S T A Milroy D J Ambler DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 63
IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A APPEAL 2012/12
2013 Maori Appellate Court MB 159 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120003005 APPEAL 2012/12 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Waihou Hutoia
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A IN THE MATTER OF Papatupu 2A No 2
363 Aotea MB 257 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20160003019 UNDER Section 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Papatupu 2A No 2 MAUREEN FLUTEY Applicant Hearings:
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A MAUD HILDA RYDER NELSON OGLE Applicants. Applicant
103 Taitokerau MB 284 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120007681 UNDER Section 289, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Mangamuka East No. 1 B No. 1 B RIMA
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A JOSEPH PAIKEA AND JEANETTE ROONEY Applicants JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG
140 Taitokerau MB 78 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150005261 UNDER Section 135, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Otara 5D1 JOSEPH PAIKEA AND JEANETTE
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A Joanna Alberta Brown and Helen Renner Applicants
36 Tairawhiti MB 78 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A20130003943 UNDER Section 239, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Appointment of trustees to Pipituangi
More informationSection 238, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act Pipituangi A
7 Tairawhiti MB 39 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRA WHITI DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND A20080009969 Section 238, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Pipituangi A THOMAS JOHN BROWNLIE
More informationSection 43, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act DONALD BRUCE PARKER CHERYLELAlNEPARKER Applicants. TANIAMAAKA Respondent JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD
196 Napier MB IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND A20070010542 A20070010543 Section 43, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Karamu DlB2C2 - Rehearing DONALD
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A A
36 Te Waipounamu MB 151 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A20130002370 A20130002091 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Sections 231, 241 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Tahae
More informationKENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent. Randerson, Winkelmann and Keane JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60 BETWEEN AND KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 February 2015
More informationTRUSTEES DUTIES Māori Land Court/Te Kooti Whenua Māori
TRUSTEES DUTIES Māori Land Court/Te Kooti Whenua Māori This is a comprehensive guide to the roles and resonsibilities of the trustees of a Māori land trust. These roles and responsibilities are drawn from
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT A APPEAL 2017/13 IN THE MATTER OF OMAHU 4C SECTION 6.
2018 Maori Appellate Court MB 170 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT A20170004176 APPEAL 2017/13 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF OMAHU 4C SECTION
More informationJUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG
157 Taitokerau MB 7 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20160006309 A20170004180 UNDER Section 239, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Omapere Taraire E
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A LEONARD KIDWELL Applicants ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG
95 Taitokerau MB 280 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150001344 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Te Komiti 1B2B2 Ahu Whenua Trust MARTHA
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A
385 Aotea MB 20 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20180001376 UNDER Sections 239 and 244, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Whitianga Papa Tupu Ora Ahu Whenua Trust NOVENA
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A A A Applicant
147 Taitokerau MB 241 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20160005037 A20140008692 A20150001344 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Sections 19, 43 and 238, Te Ture Whenua Māori
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRĀWHITI DISTRICT 26 Tairāwhiti MB 128 (26 TRW 128) A Applicant
IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRĀWHITI DISTRICT 26 Tairāwhiti MB 128 (26 TRW 128) A20110010100 UNDER Section 239, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Wharekahika C7 & C11 BETWEEN
More informationA200S000S812 A200S000S802 A200S000S803
Minute Book: 75 RUA 214 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRA WHITI DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND A200S000S812 A200S000S802 A200S000S803 Section 73, 19(1)(b) and 43, Te Ture Whenua
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [NAME OF REGISTRY] A Applicant. RANGIMOEKE HOUPAPA Respondent
85 Waiariki MB 107 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [NAME OF REGISTRY] A20130007530 UNDER Section 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND HURAKIA TRUST KAWANA WIKIRIWHI Applicant
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 22 Taitokerau MB 201 (22 TTK 201) A Applicant
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 22 Taitokerau MB 201 (22 TTK 201) A20090009350 UNDER Section 18(1)(a), Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Part Mohinui Pt Lot 22 DP
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT A MARK WILLIAM MANSFIELD Applicant
22 Takitimu MB 123 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT A20110011130 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Section 238, 239 and 240 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Matahiwi 1A & 2 other
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Appellant
2018 Māori Appellate Court MB 123 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20170005519 UNDER Section 58 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN An appeal by Charles Rudd
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A DONATA KAUIKA-STEVENS Applicant. TIAKI TUME Respondent
354 Aotea MB 36 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20150006053 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Section 240 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Te Wirihana Tawake Whānau Trust BETWEEN DONATA KAUIKA-STEVENS
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A & A
321 Aotea MB 24 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20140004489 & A20140005825 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Section 19(1)(a), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Part Hokio A - Section
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Appellant. MARGARET SAMSON AND MASSEY SAMSON Respondents
2018 Māori Appellate Court MB 469 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20180003812 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Otarihau 2B1C
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000133 [2016] NZDC 3321 BETWEEN AND HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant NEW ZEALAND LAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Respondent Hearing:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2013-404-003305 [2016] NZHC 2712 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an application under sections 295 and 298 BETWEEN AND MARK HECTOR NORRIE
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT 37 Tairawhiti MB 238 (37 TRW 238) A A A
IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT 37 Tairawhiti MB 238 (37 TRW 238) A20130005622 A20130009376 A20130005691 UNDER Section 215, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Hopuruahine
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
NOTE: THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 28 MAY 2012 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTIES' NAMES AND ANY PARTICULARS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE RESPONDENT (INCLUDING HER NAME, OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
More informationIN THE MATTER OF ROBERT JH WARD, A NOTARY AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NOTARIES (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE) RULES 2011 DECISION OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF FACULTIES IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT JH WARD, A NOTARY AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NOTARIES (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE) RULES 2011 DECISION OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY POINT 1. A complaint
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Section 43, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act May 2006, 170 Aotea MB 51-60
Minute Book 178 AOT 80 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT UNDER A20060005222 Section 43, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangipo North 8 RANGI BRISTOL MATIU HAITANA AlDEN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between AH (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
AA/06781/2014 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 April 2016 On 22 July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationApplicant. Hearings: 1 November 2017, 72 Tairawhiti MB May 2018, 76 Tairawhiti MB (Heard at Wairoa) JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P J SAVAGE
77 Tairawhiti MB 187 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A20170005065 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Sections 215, 219, 220, 222, 338(5) & 338(9) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Mokau Reserve
More informationAppellant. YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA58/2017 [2017] NZCA 280 BETWEEN AND Y&P NZ LIMITED Appellant YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents Hearing: 11 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT 5 TAIRAWHITI MB 87 A Applicant. ADDIE WAINOHU JOHN HOANI TAMATI Respondents
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND 5 TAIRAWHITI MB 87 A20080012121 Sections 238 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Tamati Whanau Trust WI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A
31 Tairawhiti MB 95 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A20130004580 UNDER Section 227 and 238, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Rimu Trust (Tokata A14 and other
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationCategory Scottish Further and Higher Education: Higher Education/Plagiarism and Intellectual Property
Scottish Parliament Region: Mid Scotland and Fife Case 201002095: University of Stirling Summary of Investigation Category Scottish Further and Higher Education: Higher Education/Plagiarism and Intellectual
More informationIN THE MATTER. Te Kopua No 3 and 4 Blocks are held under a Section 438/53 Trust, now
Volume 98 Folio 100 In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto District File: A20020001729 IN THE MATTER of an application by Robert Tukiri under Section 239 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 387. JONATHON VAN KLEEF Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2012-485-2135 [2013] NZHC 387 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY AT
More informationMarley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd
Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL
More informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 10
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 10 ACA 9/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 78 READT 042/16 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND An application to review a decision of the Registrar pursuant to section 112 of the Real
More informationGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 228/2015 Date heard: 30 July 2015 Date delivered: 4 August 2015 In the matter between NOMALUNGISA MPOFU Applicant
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2009 BETWEEN ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationMAYLENE WAEREA Respondent
162 Waiariki MB 117 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20150006736 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Sections 231, 18(1)() and 240 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 The Mere Royal Whānau
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs S Canon (UK) Ltd Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Trustees of the Canon (UK) Retirement Benefit Scheme (the Trustees) Complaint Summary 1. Mrs S complaint
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 7 October 2015 On 25 November Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN. Between
G Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 7 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562. IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2010-409-000559 [2016] NZHC 562 IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy of DAVID IAN HENDERSON
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationRespondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 48 (Ch) Case No: CH-2017-000105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT 10 TAIRAWHITI MB 137 (10 TRW 137) A
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND 10 TAIRAWHITI MB 137 (10 TRW 137) A20090010447 Sections 238 and 244, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Te Rimu
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A IN THE MATTER OF Horowhenua 11
293 Aotea MB 165 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20110009772 UNDER Sections 239, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Horowhenua 11 AND JONATHAN PROCTER, KERI TE PA, BRENTON
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr A Rettig UK Pension Scheme (the Scheme) KPMG LLP (KPMG) Complaint Summary 1. Mr A has complained that when a pension sharing order on divorce was
More informationJEAN TE URUHAU NUKU Appellant. Ellen France, Venning and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Venning J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA99/2014 [2014] NZCA 312 BETWEEN AND JEAN TE URUHAU NUKU Appellant LOMA EMIRI TAYLOR AND PETER DAVID TAYLOR Respondents Hearing: 19 June 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationREAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE)
Decision No: [2014] NZREADT 40 Reference No: READT 043/13 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 ROBERT GARLICK Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003)
More informationThe names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 261/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN OL Applicant AND MR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 5284-03 BETWEEN AND MACLENNAN REALTY LIMITED Appellant NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2004 Appearances: J Waymouth for Appellant
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MOULDEN. Between. MR NSIKANABASI UMOH ESSIEN (No Anonymity Direction Made) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/27276/2012 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 27 May 2014 On 29 May 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 November 2006 On 26 February Before. Senior Immigration Judge Storey Dr T Okitikpi Miss V S Street
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal NB and JN (right of permanent residence) France [2007] UKAIT 00039 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 November 2006 On 26 February
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More information- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS. TRIBUNAL: Judge Peter Kempster Mrs Shameem Akhtar
[] UKFTT 02 (TC) TC04432 Appeal number: TC/13/87 INCOME TAX penalties mitigated CIS penalties whether disproportionate RCC v Bosher whether delay in arranging oral hearing of appeal was breach of article
More informationJUDGMENT. Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant)
Michaelmas Term [2013] UKSC 69 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 81 JUDGMENT Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Sumption
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 BETWEEN AND JEFFREY GEORGE LOPAS AND LORRAINE ELIZABETH MCHERRON Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2005 Court:
More informationThe names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 142/2014 & 160/2014 CONCERNING applications for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of Standards Committee BETWEEN VL Applicant (and
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr S Namulas SIPP (formerly the Self Invested Personal Harvester Pension Scheme) (the SIPP) Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Ltd (LV=) Outcome 1.
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd January 2018 On 22 nd February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/28692/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd January 2018 On 22 nd February 2018 Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 28 November 2006 On 27 February Before
SS (s104(4)(b) of 2002 Act = application not limited) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00026 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 28 November 2006
More informationThe sins of the father Yearwood v Yearwood
The sins of the father Yearwood v Yearwood June 2011 It is becoming increasingly common for parties to matrimonial litigation to seek cross border recognition and/or enforcement of financial orders. An
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A A A Applicant
113 Waikato Maniapoto MB 245 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20120001584 A20120008304 A20140009061 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Sections 238, 231 and 239, Te Ture
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 12 January 2016 On 27 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2016 On 27 January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 33 Taitokerau MB 11 (3 TTK 11) A HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LTD Applicant
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 33 Taitokerau MB 11 (3 TTK 11) A20100009786 UNDER Sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(d), Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Horo 2B2B2B
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A A WYNYARD KAWITI Respondent. C Hockly for the respondent
162 Taitokerau MB 269 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150006429 A20160004558 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Section 19 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Motatau 2 Section 65A
More informationARBITRATION ACT NO. 4 OF 1995 LAWS OF KENYA
LAWS OF KENYA ARBITRATION ACT NO. 4 OF 1995 Revised Edition 2012 [2010] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2012] No.
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 27 April 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Dr O NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) Outcome 1. Dr
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 958. ARAI KORP LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV 2011-419-001243 [2013] NZHC 958 UNDER The Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review of a decision made pursuant
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr L NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Pensions (as a service provided by NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) Complaint Summary Mr L has complained
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016. PREET PVT LIMITED First Respondent
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016 an application for freezing orders JEANIE MAY BORSBOOM (LABOUR INSPECTOR), MINISTRY OF BUSINESS,
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009. IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009 IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND DAVID ALAN
More informationLakshmi Bhargavi Koppula. Na (Fiona) Zhou
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 85 Reference No: IACDT 023/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69. SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69 BETWEEN AND AND SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE APPLICATION (THE
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016 Before DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN. Between SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01110/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 th August 2015 On 1 st September 2015 Before UPPER
More informationBasnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Basnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at George House, Edinburgh on 7 February 2012 Determination
More informationAppeal Panel Hearing. Case of. Mr Alexander Banyard. Thursday 15 June RICS Parliament Square, London. Panel
Appeal Panel Hearing Case of Mr Alexander Banyard On Thursday 15 June 2017 At RICS Parliament Square, London Panel Julian Weinberg (Lay Chair) Ian Hastie (Surveyor Member) Helen Riley (Surveyor Member)
More informationPROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS
[2017] UKFTT 0509 (TC) TC05962 Appeal numbers: TC/2014/05870 TC/2015/00425 PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER AWARD
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE STOREY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PETER LANE. Between TRISHITA FARJANA GOFFAR MUMU.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Mumu (paragraph 320; Article 8; scope) [2012] UKUT 00143(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 4 April 2012 Determination Promulgated Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY. Between MR NEEAJ KUMAR (ANONYMITY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 13 September 2018 On 9 November 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/04180/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 July 2014 On 22 July 2014
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/04180/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 3 July 2014 On 22 July 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationPart VII. Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration. [The following translation is not an official document]
Part VII Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration [The following translation is not an official document] 627 Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Part five. Arbitration [The following translation
More information