IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 251. Part 30 of the High Court Rules. ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent
|
|
- Silas Brooks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 251 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 AND UNDER BETWEEN AND Part 30 of the High Court Rules MICHAEL ANTHONY KANE, PATRICIA MARY BARRETT, IRENE DOROTHY LODER, JENNINE TERESA KANE, KAY THOMSON, JANET ELIZABETH OTTO, RODERICK ANDREW RUTHERFORD AND LOUIS EVAN ERSKINE FAIRHALL Applicants ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent Hearing: 17 February 2014 Counsel: R J Fowler for Applicants C R Linkhorn and R M Hogg for Respondent Judgment: 21 February 2014 JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J This judgment was delivered by me on 21 February 2014 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Solicitors: Gillespie Young Watson, Lower Hutt for Applicants Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent KANE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 251 [21 February 2014]
2 Introduction and overview [1] The applicants seek alternative declarations in relation to land in Blenheim compulsorily acquired by the Crown in 1947 for New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) purposes (referred to as the 1947 land). The applicants claim that immediately prior to its compulsory acquisition, the 1947 land was owned by the beneficiaries of the Estate of George Fairhall. Those beneficiaries have all died and the applicants case is that, together with the Marlborough District Council, they are the successors to the beneficiaries. As such, they say that if the 1947 land ceases to be required for a public work, it must be offered back to them under s 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (the Act). [2] Since its acquisition, the 1947 land has been continuously used as a NZDF airbase and continues to be used for that and for regional airport purposes. [3] In 2012 the Crown entered into Deeds of Settlement with Kurahaupō iwi, providing for the transfer of the 1947 land to Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō and Rangitane o Wairau (the three Kurahaupō iwi) as part of settlement of a Treaty of Waitangi claim, to be recognised in legislation. [4] The applicants are concerned that if, prior to transfer of the 1947 land to iwi, they had existing offer-back rights in relation to that land, those rights will be permanently extinguished from the point at which the land is transferred, because iwi will not be subject to Public Works Act obligations. Grounds of review [5] The applicants contend that the Crown is in breach of its duty in a number of respects because they say the Crown knew, as at 4 December 2010, that they had offer-back rights in respect of the 1947 land and therefore ought not to have included the land in the Deeds of Settlement without first addressing their offer-back rights. [6] As a related ground of review, the applicants claim they had a legitimate expectation that, before the Crown included the 1947 land in any settlement with iwi, the Crown would first address their offer-back rights.
3 [7] As a further related ground, the applicants claim that, before making any decision to include the 1947 land in any settlement with iwi, the Crown should have taken into account their offer-back rights as a relevant consideration. [8] Further, the applicants claim that the Crown is or was under an obligation in negotiating with Kurahaupō iwi not to knowingly put at risk their offer-back rights. Remedy [9] Of the two alternative declarations originally sought, the applicants settled on the following as the remedy they require from the Court: A declaration that before the Crown included the 1947 land in the deeds of settlement, it should have first sought the consent of the applicants or procured an acknowledgement from them surrendering their offer-back rights. Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 [10] Section 40 provides for the disposal of land not required for a public work to the former owner of the land or their successor. For the purposes of s 40(5), the term successor means the person who would have been entitled to the land under the will or intestacy of that person had he or she owned the land at the date of his or her death and, in any case, where part of the land was taken, includes the successor in title. Post settlement history of the Woodbourne land [11] The first members of the Fairhall family settled in Nelson in February 1842 and in 1885 one of their sons, Edward Fairhall (Junior) moved to Woodbourne in Marlborough. The Woodbourne farm subsequently became part of a family farming partnership, registered in the name of George Fairhall, one of the three surviving sons of Edward Fairhall (Junior). Due to George Fairhall s interest in aviation, part of the Woodbourne farm came to be used as a private airfield in the 1920s. [12] In 1939, a major part of Woodbourne was taken by the Crown for NZDF purposes under the Public Works Act 1928.
4 [13] On 18 July 1941 George Fairhall died intestate and without issue. [14] On 29 September 1941, letters of administration were obtained from the Supreme Court in Nelson by George Fairhall s four surviving siblings, as his next of kin. [15] In 1946, during the period of administration, the administrators of the estate sold the Fairhall homestead and some of the remaining Woodbourne land to private interests. It seems clear the administrators were seeking to liquidate the assets in the estate for distribution in that form, as is evident from a 1948 deed of final distribution of the estate, in partially executed form and to which I shall refer shortly. [16] In 1947, and before the administration of the estate was finalised, the Crown compulsorily acquired a further 111 acres of Woodbourne land for NZDF purposes. This is the land at issue in these proceedings. The acquisition was on 29 September 1947, and was effected by Proclamation 678 (Marlborough Registry). [17] At some point in 1948 the estate was finalised, as appears from the partially executed and incomplete copy of the above-mentioned deed of distribution, exhibited to the affidavit of Jennine Teresa Kane. [18] It is accepted that, under intestacy law at the time of George Fairhall s death, George Fairhall s beneficiaries under his estate were his four surviving siblings (who became the administrators of his estate) and the children of his predeceased siblings. 1 All of those beneficiaries are now deceased. [19] The applicants in this proceeding are the grandchildren of two of the deceased siblings of George Fairhall and the great grandchildren of one of those siblings. Issues [20] The applicants must successfully argue three questions before the substantive grounds of review can be considered. First, are the applicants successors for the 1 Administration Act 1908 and Statute of Distributions 1685, s 7.
5 purposes of s 40 of the Act? Second, is their claim justiciable? Third, and closely related to the second question, does the Court in its supervisory role, have jurisdiction to review parliamentary policy and process in this case? Are the applicants successors for the purposes of s 40 of the Act? [21] The Crown s position is that, while the applicants may be successors of beneficiaries of George Fairhall s estate under the law of estates and succession, they are not successors for the purposes of s 40 of the Act. [22] The Crown s submission in this regard is that, at the time of its compulsory acquisition in 1947, the estate of George Fairhall was the owner of the land and the now deceased beneficiaries of his estate would have been his successors for the purposes of s 40 of the Act, as those persons would have been entitled to inherit the land under the intestacy. Had the land become surplus to the Crown s requirements during their lifetime, they would have been entitled to a s 40 offer-back. The Crown s case is, however, that the applicants are generationally removed from such entitlement and are not eligible for offer-back, as they are the successors of beneficiaries for whom entitlement did not crystallise during their lifetime. [23] The first limb of s 40(5) of the Act is the one applicable to the applicants situation. Its interpretation is clear. It provides only for offer-back to the immediate beneficiaries under the will or intestacy of the original owner. On that basis, only those beneficiaries who were the immediate successors under the intestacy of George Fairhall s estate qualified as his successors for the purposes of s 40(5). The applicants do not qualify. This interpretation accords with the following obiter observations of the Court of Appeal in Port Gisborne Ltd v Smiler, which I respectfully adopt: 2 Pursuant to sub (2) land is to be offered back to the person from whom it was acquired or to the successor of that person. Successor is defined in subs (5) which, as set out earlier, provides: (5) For the purposes of this section, the term successor in relation to any person, means the person who would have been entitled to the land under the will or intestacy of that person had he owned 2 Port Gisborne Ltd v Smiler [1999] 2 NZLR 695 (CA), at [44] [45].
6 the land at the date of his death; and, in any case where part of a person s land was acquired or taken, includes the successor in title of that person. The division in subs (5) is immediately apparent. Where part of a person s land was taken, and that part is available for offer back, the offer is to be made to the successor in title of the original owner. In other circumstances however, the offer is to be made to the person who would have been entitled to the land under the will or intestacy of that person had he owned the land at the date of his death. Parliament has made a deliberate distinction. Offer-back provisions allowing for sale to owners of land from which the subject land was severed have existed since Such provisions give effect to a legislative policy of re-amalgamating blocks of land where only part was acquired by the Crown. Owners of adjacent land have been alternative offerees. In both cases it was the person then holding title to the land who became entitled. In 1981 new offer-back provisions were introduced. Where an entire section of land is acquired the provision is narrower and provides only for offer back to the immediate beneficiaries, under the will or on intestacy, of the original owner. [24] In March 2011, a part of the 1947 land (2.66 hectares), known as the golf club land, having been determined as no longer required for a public work was offered back to the applicants as the immediate surviving descendants to the beneficiaries of the estate of GHM Fairhall, as required pursuant to Section 40(2) of the Public Works Act The applicants did not take up the offer to buy back the 2.66 ha but point to this offer-back as evidence of the Crown s recognition of their offer-back rights generally under s 40. [25] However, my view of the eligibility of the applicants for offer-back rights to the 1947 land is as set out in paragraph [21] above. It follows that I accept the Crown s argument in relation to the absence of eligibility of the applicants for an offer-back to that land under s 40 of the Act, should it ever become surplus to the Crown s requirements. In itself, that is sufficient to dispose of this application. However, it is appropriate to also consider the issues of justiciability and jurisdiction that have been raised. Justiciability [26] Even if the applicants were eligible for offer-back under s 40(5) of the Act, a question immediately arises in relation to the justiciability of their claim. The wording of the declaration, as sought, while directed to an alleged failure to take into
7 account a legitimate expectation in relation to a statutory right, in reality seeks to bind the Crown in respect of an unknown future contingency. [27] The Deeds of Settlement with Kurahaupō iwi provide inter alia for the purchase and lease back to New Zealand Defence Force of those parts of Woodbourne Airbase that are still required for defence purposes. This includes the 1947 land. I will refer to these Deeds of Settlement and the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill in more detail under the related heading of jurisdiction. [28] The applicants have argued that, if they are eligible for offer-back rights under s 40, then in the event the 1947 land becomes surplus to Crown requirements, their inchoate or nascent pre-emptive rights will be extinguished if the land is transferred into iwi ownership, as that transfer will not be subject to Public Works Act obligations. [29] The Government s obligation, where s 40 rights have been triggered and the distinction between that situation and the situation of land still required for public works, has been explained to the applicants on a number of occasions, through correspondence with the Office of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and with Directors of the Office of Treaty Settlements. Throughout this correspondence, it has been made clear that the vesting or transfer of any property to Kurahaupō iwi as part of the settlement is subject to confirmation that no prior offer-back or other third party rights or obligations are found to exist in respect of that property. [30] For instance, on 29 June 2009, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations wrote to Mr Tim Fairhall advising that: In clause 7(j) of Attachment Four of the Agreement, the vesting or transfer of any property as part of the settlement is subject to confirmation that no prior offer back or other third party rights or obligations exist in relation to the property. I have asked my officials to keep you informed of any progress as appropriate. [31] On 28 May 2010 the Minister wrote again to Mr Tim Fairhall advising:
8 The Crown and Kurahaupō are working towards signing a Deed of Settlement in mid-2010 The Minister of Defence is currently preparing a White Paper on Government policy arising from the Defence Review 2009 that is expected to be released in September The New Zealand Defence Force needs to have a clear basis for decisions on what land is surplus and what land is needed for their operational purposes at Woodbourne. The forthcoming White Paper is expected to provide this clarity. The final offer to Kurahaupō over Woodbourne, including any specific land to be offered, will be guided by the findings in the White Paper. Any land at Woodbourne declared surplus must pass normal statutory clearances, including the offer-back provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, before it can be purchased by Kurahaupō as part of their Treaty settlement. [32] In November 2010, the (then) Deputy Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements Office, wrote to Mr Tim Fairhall advising: The Crown and all three Kurahaupō iwi... will have signed the Deeds by early December We envisage that legislation giving effect to the Deeds will be passed by the end of next year. The Kurahaupō settlements include the opportunity for the three iwi to purchase land at the New Zealand defence Force (NZDF) Woodbourne Airbase. The NZDF has already declared some Airbase land surplus and this is currently subject to section 40 (s 40) of the Public Works Act This land will only be available for purchase by the iwi if the land is not required to be sold in accordance with s 40. A diagram of the surplus land is included under Woodbourne Airbase Land in the Attachments Schedule of the initialled Deeds which can be found on the Office of Treaty Settlements website under the Documents tab. The Deeds also provide that by 31 December 2010, the NZDF must advise the three iwi of: (a) (b) the remaining Airbase land that is required for NZDF operational purposes or required for any other public work. This land will be available to the iwi for purchase and leaseback for the continuation of the public work; and the remaining Airbase land that is not required for NZDF operational purposes and is not required for any other public work. This land will be declared surplus and subject to s 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 and only be available for purchase by the iwi if the land is not required to be sold in accordance with s 40. [33] On 12 July 2011, the Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements wrote again to Mr Tim Fairhall advising that:
9 ... Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 is only triggered if the land offered is declared surplus by the landholding agency in which case it will go through clearances under section 40. For those portions of the Woodbourne Airbase that the New Zealand Defence Force declared surplus the clearance process has now been completed in accordance with the Public Works Act Where required, descendants of former owners were identified and offer-backs made to them. [34] On 6 September 2011, the Director wrote further advising that: All of the land NZDF declared surplus to its requirements has been through the government s disposal clearance process which included assessment of whether there were obligations under section 40 of the Act to offer the land back to former owners or their successor(s). Where land has been cleared by this assessment it will be available for purchase by iwi. [35] On 31 May 2012, the Deputy Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements, inter alia wrote advising: It is our view that an entitlement to an offer-back over Crown-owned land under section 40 does not exist until such time as the land is declared surplus. [36] The above excerpts clearly explain the situation in relation to the NZDF land; the distinction between land still required for public works and land no longer so required; the application of s 40 of the Act to the latter; and the process being followed. [37] The question of the justiciability of the applicants claim can be dealt with shortly. The situation is clear. While the applicants contend the Crown had a duty to address their claim of inchoate offer-back rights before entering into the Deeds of Settlement with Kurahaupō iwi, such rights, had they existed, have not yet arisen in relation to the subject land and thus no commensurate legitimate expectation in the s 40 context can arise. The land is not surplus to Public Works Act requirements, as it is still required as a NZDF base and for regional airport purposes. Any contractual rights or legitimate expectation under s 40 could constitute no more than a possible future contingency. Thus, there is no enforceable duty that the Crown has breached; nor any decision that the Crown should have taken prior to the signing of the Deeds of Settlement that could be categorised as amenable to judicial review.
10 Jurisdiction [38] Closely related to justiciability is the question of the Court s jurisdiction in relation to parliamentary policy and processes. [39] In May 2009, the applicants became aware that the Crown, through the Office of Treaty Settlements, was considering the inclusion of the 1947 land, comprising part of the Air Force s base at Woodbourne, as part of the Crown s Treaty settlements with the Kurahaupō iwi. [40] In October and December 2010, the Crown signed Deeds of Settlement with Kurahaupō and other iwi. Inter alia, the Deeds provided for the future treatment of three types of land at Woodbourne Airbase, described as follows: (a) current surplus land which NZDF had declared surplus to requirements on 1 March 2010 and which was at the time still going through the statutory clearance process under the Act; (b) non-operational land which was any land that NZDF would notify the iwi by 31 December 2010 was no longer required for NZDF operational purposes or required for any other public work, and which would also need to go through the statutory clearance process under the Act; and (c) leaseback land which was the remainder of the Woodbourne land that is required for NZDF operational purposes or required for any other public work. [41] In December 2010, NZDF informed Kurahaupō iwi of the areas that were no longer required for operational purposes or for any other public work, and those areas that were still required for operational purposes and which would be available for sale and leaseback. The remainder of the 1947 land was assessed as still required for defence purposes. Transfer of the properties would be conditional on settlement legislation being enacted to give legal effect to the matters covered in the Deeds of Settlement.
11 [42] Kurahaupō iwi have indicated their intention to purchase the operational areas (if settlement legislation in its current form is enacted) and lease them back to the NZDF. [43] On 27 May 2013, the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill (the Bill) was introduced into the House. The Bill is an omnibus bill comprising four component bills, three of which are claims settlement bills that seek to give effect to the Deeds of Settlement entered into by the Crown providing for settlement of all historical claims in the top of the South Island and some claims in the North Island. [44] The first reading of the Bill occurred on 5 June 2013 and the Maori Affairs Select Committee reported back on the Bill on 19 November [45] If the Bill passes into legislation, the Crown will be authorised to transfer the properties to iwi as part of commercial redress. In this regard, Part 3, Subpart 1 of the Bill expressly provides for the transfer of the Woodbourne land. By way of example, s 146 (1) provides as follows: 146 The Crown may transfer properties (1) To give effect to part 6 of a deed of settlement, and any of parts 3 to 6 of the property redress schedule of a deed of settlement, the Crown (acting by and through the chief executive of the land holding agency) is authorised to (a) (b) transfer the fee simple estate in a commercial property, deferred selection property, or any Woodbourne land to the trustees of a settlement trust; and sign a transfer instrument or other document, or do anything else, to effect the transfer. [46] Section 148 of the Bill provides for its application to other enactments, again with express reference to the Woodbourne land that: 148 Application of other enactments... (4) In exercising the powers conferred by section 146, the Crown is not required to comply with any other enactment that would otherwise regulate or apply to the transfer of a commercial property, a deferred selection property, or any Woodbourne land.
12 [47] As is clear from the above sections of the Bill, title to the land will be perfected by the enactment of the proposed legislation. Transfer of title to the Woodbourne land is expressly recognised in the draft sections. [48] The lengthy correspondence conducted on behalf of the applicants with the office of the responsible Minister, excerpts of which are set out above, also make it abundantly clear that neither the inclusion of the Woodbourne land, or its history, or the possible application of s 40 of the Act, have been overlooked in any respect during the course of negotiations and in the parliamentary process. The wording of the draft legislation explicitly reflects this. [49] The applicants, through counsel, have accepted as trite law that the Court will not interfere in parliamentary proceedings, citing New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, 3 and accept this principle extends to steps or decisions preliminary to legislation in a Treaty of Waitangi settlement context that are closely related to the parliamentary legislative process, citing Potaka-Dewes v Attorney-General. 4 Likewise, the applicants have accepted, for the same reasons, that the advice given by officials to a Minister of the Crown is not amenable to review, citing Milroy v Attorney-General. 5 [50] The applicants profess not to seek to challenge the sovereignty of Parliament, or the parliamentary process, or the steps leading to the draft legislation, or the advice given by officials. However, they are in reality seeking to challenge all of those matters. Their challenge is characterised as directed to the failure of the Crown to take certain steps before committing itself to those steps. In the wording of the declaration they are seeking those steps were that, before the Crown included the 1947 land in the deeds of settlement, it should have first sought the consent of the applicants or procured an acknowledgement from them surrendering their offer-back rights. Thus, the challenge is to an alleged requirement for the Crown to have addressed their claim to inchoate rights under s 40 of the Act, prior to committing itself by entering into the Deeds of Settlement New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2007] NZCA 269, [2008] 1 NZLR 318. Potaka-Dewes v Attorney-General [2009] NZAR 248 (HC). Milroy v Attorney-General [2005] NZAR 562 (CA).
13 [51] Even if the applicants did qualify under s 40(5) of the Act as successors for the purpose of offer-back, any rights they might have to an offer-back could be no more than a possible future contingency, as I have already found. As such they are not enforceable or actionable until such time as they might crystallise. [52] The suggestion in the declaration, that the Crown should be required to seek the consent of third parties to a settlement process in which those third parties are not involved, is also misconceived. [53] There has been no determination of the applicants rights or interests protected or recognised by law, which have been affected, in terms of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and requiring the observance of natural justice in the applicants case. As I have already found on two bases, the applicants have no rights or interests under s 40 which could be affected. [54] Insofar as the applicants had a right to be heard on the issue of their situation in relation to s 40 and to the preservation of any inchoate rights they might possess, the applicants have been fairly heard. The extent of the correspondence referred to is testament to the engagement that officials entered into with the applicants, in order to explain the situation and the process to them. There is no proper ground for the Court to interfere in the parliamentary process that is under way, nor any ground on which to review the Treaty settlement process. Result [55] The application is dismissed. Costs [56] The Crown has asked for costs if it is successful. These are awarded on a 2B basis. Goddard J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 56. JOANNE MIHINUI, MATATAHI MIHINUI, TANIA MIHINUI Appellants
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV-2016-463-000181 [2017] NZHC 56 UNDER the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an appeal from a decision of the District Court
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-002795 [2016] NZHC 1199 BETWEEN AND ALWYNE JONES Plaintiff AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: 29 February 2016 Appearances: R Pidgeon for
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 2483 BETWEEN. Plaintiff
NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 437A OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
More informationWaka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill. Government Bill. Explanatory note. General policy statement
Seq: 1 Free lead 35D*points, Next lead 310D, Vjust R PCO 7687/8 Drafted by Parliamentary Counsel IN CONFIDENCE Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement The primary purpose of this
More informationIn the Maori AppeIIate Court of New Zealand Te Waipounamu Registry
In the Maori AppeIIate Court of New Zealand Te Waipounamu Registry Appeals 1998/3-9 IN THE MATTER of an appeal by the Attorney-General AND Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited, AND Te Atiawa Manawhenua
More informationNORMAN TANE Appellant. Appearances: Mr S Webster & Mr J Koning for the Ruapuha and Uekaha Hapu Trust Mr K J Catran for Norman Tane
IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT 2010 MAORI APPELLATE COURT MB 512 (2010 APPEAL 512) A20080016920 A20080016617 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Section 59, Te Ture
More informationPower of Court to grant specific performance of leases of Maori freehold land
Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill Maori Land Amendment Bill Government Bill As further reported from the committee of the whole House Hon Parekura Horomia Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill Maori Land
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC TE RUNANGA O NGĀTI MANAWA Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2011-485-1233 [2016] NZHC 1183 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 an/or Part 30 of the High Court Rules Central
More informationo land over 0.4 hectares that includes or adjoins any lake (the bed of which exceeds 8 hectares):
Overseas Investment Bill Government Bill 2004 No 222-1 Explanatory Note General policy statement The purpose of this Bill is to introduce changes to the way that overseas investment is regulated in New
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SAM HONGARA KEELAN Applicant. NGAWINI POURI KEELAN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CIV-2015-416-000043 [2016] NZHC 1445 BETWEEN AND SAM HONGARA KEELAN Applicant NGAWINI POURI KEELAN Respondent Hearing: 28 June 2016 Appearances: G R Webb
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2012] NZHC THE NEW ZEALAND MĀORI COUNCIL Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2012-485-2187 [2012] NZHC 3338 BETWEEN AND AND AND THE NEW ZEALAND MĀORI COUNCIL Applicant THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent THE MINISTER OF
More informationThe Public Guardian and Trustee Act
Consolidated to September 23, 2011 1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationTe Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc.
Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc. PO Box 50355, Takapuwahia PORIRUA Ph 04 237-6070 Fax 04 238-4529 Email runanga@ngatitoa.iwi.nz Supplementary Submission on the Te Tau lhu Claims Settlement Bill To the Maori
More informationWaikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River Settlement Bill 2008 (2010 No 302-2)
Digest No. 1763 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River Settlement Bill 2008 (2010 No 302-2) Date of Introduction: 23 September 2008 Portfolio: Select Committee: Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Māori
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA241/07 CA246/07 [2007] NZCA 269
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA241/07 CA246/07 [2007] NZCA 269 BETWEEN AND AND AND AND AND NEW ZEALAND MAORI COUNCIL First Appellant THE FEDERATION OF MAORI AUTHORITIES INCORPORATED Second Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-1228 [2014] NZHC 1305 UNDER the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 and the High Court Rules IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND an application pursuant
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC NGĀTI WĀHIAO Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE CIV-2013-463-000448 [2018] NZHC 1991 BETWEEN AND NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI, NGĀTI TAEOTU ME NGĀTI
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA110/05. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA110/05 BETWEEN AND PRIME COMMERCIAL LIMITED Appellant WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 25 July 2006 Court: Counsel: William Young
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 576. PHILLIPA MARY WATERS Plaintiff. PERRY FOUNDATION Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2011-419-1790 [2013] NZHC 576 BETWEEN AND PHILLIPA MARY WATERS Plaintiff PERRY FOUNDATION Defendant CIV-2011-419-1791 BETWEEN AND VALERIE JOYCE HELM
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 389. NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-2033 [2017] NZHC 389 BETWEEN AND AND AND NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST Plaintiff ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Defendant NGĀTI PAOA IWI TRUST Second
More informationSporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 No 65
New South Wales Sporting Venues Authorities Act 2008 No 65 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 State Sporting Venues Authority Division 1 Constitution
More informationEstate Elizabeth May Henson or May Henson or May Brown or Mable Brown' or Elizabeth May Brown RESERVED DECISION
Minute Book:131 AOT 230 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Place: Whanganui. Present: C M Wainwright, Judge Date: 15 October 2003 Application No: A 19990010926 Subject: A20010004689
More informationTHE CHARITIES REGISTRATION BOARD Respondent. Randerson, Wild and Winkelmann JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Randerson J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA308/2014 [2015] NZCA 449 BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION FOR ANTI-AGING RESEARCH First Appellant THE FOUNDATION FOR REVERSAL OF SOLID STATE HYPOTHERMIA Second Appellant AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-002481 [2015] NZHC 2098 BETWEEN AND AND AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Plaintiff JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff WEATHERTIGHT HOMES
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI Appellant. HOROWHENUA SAILING CLUB First Respondent
2014 Maori Appellate Court MB 60 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20130008562 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND AND Horowhenua
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A TANIA MARIE CHARTERIS Applicant. CATRINA ROWE Respondent
181 Waiariki MB 108 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20160001810 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Sections 113 and 117 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 David John Charteris (deceased)
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A UNDER Section 134, Te Ture Whenua Māori 1993
60 Tairawhiti MB 90 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRAWHITI DISTRICT A20120006345 UNDER Section 134, Te Ture Whenua Māori 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Awapuni 1F3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF
More informationTe Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act 2002 Maori Land Amendment Act 2002
Maori Land Amendment Public No 16 Date of assent 31 May 2002 Commencement see section 2 Contents I 2 Title Commencement Part 1 Amendments to principal Act Amendments relating to preamble and intelpretation
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A MAATAI ARIKI RAWIRI KAUAE TE TOKI Applicant
2013 Chief Judge s Minute Book 456 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20120008996 UNDER Section 30, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Hako Hauraki -
More informationAlternate Director means a person appointed as an alternate of a Director pursuant to clause
Constitution of Pare Hauraki Asset Holdings Limited 1. Interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires: Alternate Director means a person appointed as an alternate
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV [2012] NZHC MAMAKU HIGHLANDS LTD Intended Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV 2012-463-137 [2012] NZHC 1848 BETWEEN AND JOSEPH RUA, RAYMOND NAMA, BURT MATCHITT, RAWIRI TE MOANA, MIHAERE PAROA, HIRA REWIRI KEEPA AND EDWARD MATCHITT
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 28 Taitokerau MB 217 (28 TTK 217) A A
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 28 Taitokerau MB 217 (28 TTK 217) A20110008223 A20110008445 UNDER Sections 19, 26C and 98, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Determination
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Incorporated Societies Bill Government Bill [To come] Explanatory note Consultation draft Hon Paul Goldsmith Incorporated Societies Bill Government Bill Contents Page 1 Title 9
More informationIN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Sections 18,37, 67, 150 and 151 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993
312 Aotea MB 104 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20130005451 UNDER Sections 18,37, 67, 150 and 151 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Waiokura Te Kauae blocks, Section
More informationThe Public Guardian and Trustee Act
1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1984-85-86, c.34 and 105; 1988-89,
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY
337 Aotea MB 131 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20140011189 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Section 67 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Mangaporou Ahu Whenua Trust Hearing 17 March 2015,
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A IN THE MATTER OF Lot 2, DP 29547
145 Taitokerau MB 4 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20170001439 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Lot 2, DP 29547 BETWEEN DIANNE DONEY, TUARI
More informationPRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY
This is a brief review of how key legislation relevant to environmental management deals with Crown obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty). The issues arising from these
More informationCONSTITUTION. Silver Fern Farms Co-operative Limited
CONSTITUTION Silver Fern Farms Co-operative Limited Adoption of new constitution I certify that this document was adopted as the Constitution of the Company by Special Resolution on 30 July 2009. E R H
More informationAboriginal Heritage Act 2006
TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section Page PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1 1. Purpose 1 2. Commencement 1 3. Objectives 2 4. Definitions 3 5. What is an Aboriginal place? 11 6. Who is a native title party for an area? 12 7.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA First Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY CIV-2014-416-24 [2015] NZHC 1115 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and/or Part 30 of the High Court Rules IN THE MATTER BETWEEN of an application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC TONI COLIN REIHANA Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV-2014-425-000102 [2016] NZHC 2048 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND of Judicial Review and related tortious
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER t h e Defamation Act 1992 section 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-092-1026 [2016] NZHC 3006 UNDER t h e Defamation Act 1992 section 35 BETWEEN M E L I S S A JEAN OPAI Plaintiff AND L A U R I E CULPAN First Defendant
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA409/2018 [2018] NZCA 533. CAROLINE ANN SAWYER Applicant. Applicant. 29 November 2018 at pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA409/2018 [2018] NZCA 533 BETWEEN AND CAROLINE ANN SAWYER Applicant VICE-CHANCELLOR OF VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON Respondent CA410/2018
More informationAppellant. ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA First Respondent. TE AITANGA A MĀHAKI TRUST Second Respondent. WAITANGI TRIBUNAL Third Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA353/2015 [2016] NZCA 626 BETWEEN AND AND AND AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA First Respondent TE AITANGA A MĀHAKI TRUST Second
More informationGuide to Wills and Estates Section I 1 OVERVIEW
Guide to Wills and Estates Section I 1 OVERVIEW This Guide covers two areas of practice which are closely related: Wills and Estates. Section II Wills covers: what a Will is; the purpose and, therefore,
More informationMissing Persons Guardianship Bill [HL]
Missing Persons Guardianship Bill [HL] CONTENTS Missing Persons Guardianship Orders 1 Application for a Guardianship Order in respect of the estate of a missing person 2 Entitlement to notice of an application
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TĀKITIMU DISTRICT A PETER NEE HARLAND Applicant. THE CROWN Interested Party
57 Tākitimu MB 1 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TĀKITIMU DISTRICT A20160006109 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND Section 30(1)(b) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC 936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE BETWEEN AND CIV-2018-470-17 [2018] NZHC 936 NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED and NGA POTIKI A TAMAPAHORE TRUST
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A VICTOR WILLIAM ROBERT HEKE Applicant. ADELINE HEKE Respondent
2013 Chief Judge s MB 996 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120013889 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Estate of James Heke - orders
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368. Appellant. SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368 BETWEEN AND ASB BANK LIMITED Appellant SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 22 June 2011 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson,
More informationHousing Legislation Amendment Bill
Housing Legislation Amendment Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement The Housing Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) is an omnibus Bill, introduced in accordance with Standing
More informationWorleyParsons Limited Constitution
WorleyParsons Limited Constitution As last amended on 26 October 2010 Table of contents Rule Page 1 Preliminary 1 1.1 Definitions and interpretation 1 1.2 Application of the Corporations Act 2001, Listing
More informationDECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Wai 2224, #2.5.8 WAITANGI TRIBUNAL Wai2224 CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Radio Spectrum and Telecommunications Urgent Claim DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL Introduction 1. On 4 July 2013 a statement
More informationATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. Cooper, Venning and Williams JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA522/2013 [2015] NZCA 337 BETWEEN AND ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 18 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Venning
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A
108 Waiariki MB 261 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20130010382 UNDER IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND Sections 18(1)(a), 67, 322 and 323 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Paenoa Te Akau
More informationTE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI MUTUNGA CHARTER 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TE MANAWA O NGĀTI MUTUNGA... 1 HE WHAKAMARAMA... 1
TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI MUTUNGA CHARTER 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TE MANAWA O NGĀTI MUTUNGA... 1 HE WHAKAMARAMA... 1 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS... 2 1.1. DEFINED TERMS:... 2 1.2. INTERPRETATION:...
More informationThe Wills Act after 10 years and the evolution of the courts dispensing power provided under the Act.
The Wills Act after 10 years and the evolution of the courts dispensing power provided under the Act. A brief look back at the provisions introduced by this Act, some notable decisions and a look at the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV UNDER the Companies Act NZ WINDFARMS LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV 2008-463-566 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND NZ WINDFARMS LIMITED Plaintiff CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NZ) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 26 March 2009
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTERPRETATION APPLICATION OF THE ACT ADMISSION AS A SHAREHOLDER TYPES OF SHARES CAPABLE OF ISSUE...
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTERPRETATION... 1 2 APPLICATION OF THE ACT... 6 3 ADMISSION AS A SHAREHOLDER... 7 4 TYPES OF SHARES CAPABLE OF ISSUE... 9 5 ISSUE OF SHARES... 14 6 PURCHASE OF OWN SHARES... 15 7
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY CLAUSE 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Meaning of insolvent 4. Meaning of personal relationship
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU REGISTRY A CJ 2010/62 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC
2017 Chief Judge s MB 133 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU REGISTRY A20100012163 CJ 2010/62 UNDER Section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rihi Hoone Pekama also known
More informationBarristers and Solicitors
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 AND IN THE MATTER of applications for marine
More informationEmbargoed. Embargoed. Embargoed
Chapter 1 Introduction The Wai 785 (Te Tau Ihu) inquiry completed its hearings in 2004. In January 2006, the claimants requested a preliminary report on issues relating to their customary rights in order
More informationAUTUMN TREE LIMITED Applicant. BISHOP WARDEN PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT OF HINTON J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE BETWEEN AND AUTUMN TREE LIMITED Applicant CIV-2017-404-001944 [2017] NZHC 2838 BISHOP WARDEN PROPERTY
More informationThe Local Government and Environment Select Committee
He tono nā ki te The Local Government and Environment Select Committee e pā ana ki te Environmental Protection Authority Bill 28 January 2011 contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...3 TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU...4 TE
More informationTrustee or any Discretionary Beneficiary, or any other Beneficiary under the Settlement. It must be acknowledged at once that FTC Incorporated being
High Court of Cook Islands (Civil Division): Quilliam C. J. sentenza 11 Agosto 1999 [ In the Matter of the Trustee Act 1956 (of New Zealand) as extended by Section 639 of the Cook Islands Act 1915. (O.A
More information1708 Maori Affairs Amendment 1974, No. 73
1708 Maori Affairs Amendment 1974, No. 73 ANALYSIS Title Preamble PART I INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS 1. Short Title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART 11 DEPARTMENT OF MAORI AFFAIRS 3. Commencement of
More informationBHP Steel Employee Share Plan Trust Deed
BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON L A W Y E R S BHP Steel Employee Share Plan Trust Deed BHP Steel Limited ABN 16 000 011 058 BHP Steel Share Plan Pty Ltd ACN 101 326 336 Dated 12 July 2002 Level 39 101 Collins Street
More informationChapter 11. Post-Settlement Governance Entity
Chapter 11 Post-Settlement Governance Entity Post-Settlement Governance Entity Contents Introduction 253 Developing a governance entity 253 Crown requirements 253 Deed of Settlement requirements post-settlement
More informationBILL WILLS, ESTATES AND SUCCESSION ACT
BILL 4 2009 WILLS, ESTATES AND SUCCESSION ACT November 2009 Andrew S. MacKay and Ingrid M. Tsui, Alexander holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP What is Bill 4? Bill 4, 2009 Wills, Estates and Succession Act consolidates
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 596. UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2017-404-000402 [2018] NZHC 596 UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 BETWEEN AND DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM
More informationSupplementary Order Paper
No 343 House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper Wednesday, 5 July 2017 Key: Bill Proposed amendments for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House this is inserted text this is deleted
More informationI TE KŌTI MANA NUI SC 135/2017 [2018] NZSC 84. NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST Appellant. ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI BETWEEN AND SC 135/2017 [2018] NZSC 84 NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI TRUST Appellant ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent NGĀTI PAOA IWI TRUST Second Respondent
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Sophisticated Estate Planning Techniques
497 ALI-ABA Course of Study Sophisticated Estate Planning Techniques Cosponsored by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. September 13-14, 2010 Boston, Massachusetts Not So Fast: Drafting, Planning,
More informationSTAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 No. 85
STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 No. 85 NEW SOUTH WALES 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Principal Act 4. Amendment of Act No. 47, 1920 5. Savings and transitional provisions TABLE OF PROVISIONS SCHEDULE
More informationAppellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-2845 [2015] NZHC 3202 BETWEEN AMANDA ADELE WHITE First Plaintiff ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Second Plaintiff AND CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH
More informationExclusions from patentability 15 Inventions contrary to public order or morality not patentable
New Zealand Patents Act 2013 Public Act 2013 No 68 Date of assent 13 September 2013 Reprint as at 14 September 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Title 2 Commencement Part 1 Preliminary Purposes and overview 3 Purposes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA95/05. MARGARET BERRYMAN Second Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and O'Regan JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA95/05 BETWEEN AND AND KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN First Appellant MARGARET BERRYMAN Second Appellant THE NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE Respondent Hearing: 27 June 2006
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 402 OF 1996 BETWEEN: CLIFTON ST HILL Plaintiff and Appearances: Olin Dennie for the Plaintiff Nicole Sylvester for the Defendant
More informationPerpetuities and Accumulations Act 1992 (No. 23 of 1992)
VIEW SUMMARY The legislation that is being viewed is valid for 6 Jul 2008. Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1992 (No. 23 of 1992) Requested: 7 Nov 2012 Consolidated: 6 Jul 2008 CONTENTS Perpetuities
More informationCOPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH (NSW) PROPERTY TRUST
COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH (NSW) PROPERTY TRUST ACT 1990 No. 67 NEW SOUTH WALES 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 - PRELIMINARY PART 2 - CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CIV-2015-488-0064 [2016] NZHC 2036 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an appeal from a decision of the Environment Court
More informationSPEAKERS NOTES. Length of presentation: Suggested form of introduction: 1. MAKING A WILL 2013 WILL AWARENESS DAY
2013 WILL AWARENESS DAY SPEAKERS NOTES Length of presentation: The Elder Law & Succession Committee ( Committee ) suggests the Will Awareness Day talks run for no longer than 25-30 minutes. Speakers might
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 7, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 7, 2009 Session JOHN ROBERT HARRELL, ET AL. v. ELIZABETH BARTON HARRELL, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hawkins County No. 16616 Thomas
More informationPLEASE NOTE Legislative Counsel Office not Table of Public Acts
c t TRUSTEE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to January 1, 2009. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationTRUST DEED FOR NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI
DATED this day of 2011 TRUST DEED FOR NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI (Post-Settlement Governance Entity ( PSGE )) 2 NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI TRUST DEED TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.13 1.1 Defined
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO.: 983 of 1996 BETWEEN JOAN BERNADETTE MAINGOT Executrix of the estate of Rose Mary Maingot, deceased Claimant and MONICA DEVAUX Defendant Appearances For
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV [2012] NZHC 982 JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV-2011-404-001590 [2012] NZHC 982 UNDER the District Courts Act 1947 BETWEEN AND MJN MCNAUGHTON LIMITED Appellant RICHARD JAMES THODE Respondent Hearing:
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE. Commission Decision C(2010)593 Standard Contractual Clauses (processors)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE Directorate C: Fundamental rights and Union citizenship Unit C.3: Data protection Commission Decision C(2010)593 Standard Contractual Clauses (processors)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-419-000929 [2014] NZHC 520 BETWEEN AND JONATHAN DOUGLAS SEALEY and DIANE MICHELLE SEALEY Appellants GARY ALLAN CRAIG, JOHN LEONARD SIEPRATH,
More informationReport to ENVIRONMENT & POLICY COMMITTEE for decision
13/373 Subject: Recognition of a Protected Customary Right and Customary Marine Title by Rongomaiwahine under the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Prepared by: Keriana Wilcox-Taylor (Senior
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SEAN TANE KELLY First Defendant. M S King for Defendants
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV-2016-470-000140 [2016] NZHC 2577 BETWEEN WESTERN WORK BOATS LIMITED First Plaintiff SEAWORKS LIMITED Second Plaintiff AND SEAN TANE KELLY First Defendant
More informationCONSTITUTION. B a n k o f S o u t h Pa c i f i c L i m i t e d
CONSTITUTION B a n k o f S o u t h Pa c i f i c L i m i t e d Contents 1. PRELIMINARY 1 1.1 Definitions 1 1.2 Interpretation 3 1.3 Headings and Listing 3 1.4 Voting entitlements and the Specified Time
More informationState Records Act 1998 No 17
New South Wales State Records Act 1998 No 17 Contents Page Part 1 Preliminary Name of Act Commencement Definitions Aboriginal relics excluded from operation of Act Application of Act to State collecting
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement This Bill is an omnibus bill. It contains amendments to legislation administered by the
More informationTHE CROWN PARE HAURAKI COLLECTIVE REDRESS DEED SCHEDULE: GENERAL MATTERS
HAKO NGĀI TAI KI TĀMAKI NGĀTI HEI NGĀTI MARU NGĀTI PAOA NGĀTI POROU KI HAURAKI NGĀTI PŪKENGA NGĀTI RĀHIRI TUMUTUMU NGĀTI TAMATERĀ NGĀTI TARA TOKANUI NGAATI WHANAUNGA TE PATUKIRIKIRI THE CROWN PARE HAURAKI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-781 [2016] NZHC 3162 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Trustee Act 1956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-1610 [2016] NZHC 2458 IN THE MATTER of the Trustee Act 1956 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for removal of Trustees and for
More information