IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCourt Appeal Judgment • May 17th, 2010
B Costs are awarded to the second respondent on a band A basis for a complex appeal, and usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA51/2021[2021] NZCA 405Court Appeal Judgment • August 26th, 2021
BETWEEN MODERN BUILT INVESTMENTS LIMITEDFirst Appellant RUSSELL DAVID SPIERSSecond Appellant AND TRACEY ANN O’BRIEN AND MCCAW LEWIS TRUSTEES (T A O’BRIEN) LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THET A O’BRIEN FAMILY TRUSTFirst Respondent TRACEY ANN O’BRIENSecond Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA701/2023[2024] NZCA 128Court Appeal Judgment • April 22nd, 2024
BETWEEN CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES (AUSTRALASIA) LIMITEDAppellant AND ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO HISTORICAL ABUSE IN STATE CARE AND IN THE CARE OF FAITH- BASED INSTITUTIONSFirst Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERALSecond Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCourt Appeal Judgment • December 14th, 2022
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCourt Appeal Judgment • February 5th, 2024
BETWEEN GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITEDApplicant AND WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCILRespondent AND THE NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDFirst Section 301 Party AND BILIMAG HOLDINGS LIMITEDSecond Section 301 Party Hearing: 18 May 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3Court Appeal Judgment • February 3rd, 2017
BETWEEN C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant AND WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE WASIM KETAN FAMILY TRUSTFirst Respondents WASIM SARWAR KETANSecond Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2013 [2013] NZCA 546Court Appeal Judgment • November 13th, 2013
BETWEEN GIBBSTON DOWNS WINES LIMITEDAppellant AND PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA220/2020[2020] NZCA 611 BETWEEN TREVOR JAMES MURRAYApplicant AND WEST COAST HOLDINGS LIMITEDRespondentCourt Appeal Judgment • January 5th, 2021
Court: Brown and Gilbert JJ Counsel: Applicant in personS A McKenna and R G Scott for Respondent Judgment:(On the papers) 2 December 2020 at 2 pm
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA149/2012 [2013] NZCA 286Court Appeal Judgment • July 11th, 2013
BETWEEN ARCADIA HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)Appellant AND MORE TO THIS LIFE LIMITED AND ANDREW GEORGE CLARK AS TRUSTEES OF THE ULTIMATE LIFESTYLE TRUSTRespondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 263/98Court Appeal Judgment • May 14th, 2022
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 124/00Court Appeal Judgment • July 9th, 2022
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 273/91Court Appeal Judgment • August 30th, 2023
This appeal relates to a small piece of land comprising 455 sq metres which is said to be the site of an ancient burial ground, or urupa. It forms part of an undeveloped site of approximately 5000 sq metres at the end of George Bourke Drive in the Mt Wellington area of Auckland. The whole of the land was designated as an archaeological site within the meaning of the Historic Places Act 1980, and recognised as such by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The presence of the burial site is claimed to have become known as recently as 1985 to the elders of the Ngati Paoa Tribe, who lived in the Mt Wellington area in the early part of last century.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2008Court Appeal Judgment • March 30th, 2009
STANN CREEK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ANDLIGHTHOUSE REEF RESORT LIMITED NORTHERN TWO CAYES LIMITED Appellant First Respondent Second Respondent JOHN M. BLACK, JR. Third Respondent BEFORE:The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice Sosa Justice of Appeal The Hon. Mr. Justice Morrison Justice of Appeal
English version **Court Appeal Judgment • August 20th, 2021
THE COURT: The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs is made as neither intervener requested such an order and the respondent did not participate in the appeal.
