PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of the Cook Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of the Cook Islands >> 2007 >> [2007] CKHC 10

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

In Re Gully [2007] CKHC 10; Application 13 of 1995 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(LANDS DIVISION)


APPLICATION NO. 13/95


IN THE MATTER of the rehearing of Te
Puna Lands Act 1970


AND


IN THE MATTER of the lands known as
TE PUNA SECTION
50A AND 50B TAKITUMU


AND


IN THE MATTER of an application by Bell
Gully, Solicitor for
Applicants


Mr Browne for Applicants
Mrs J Baudinet for Objectors
Date of hearing: 18 July 2007
Date of decision:


MINUTE OF SMITH J


[1] It is noted that on the 20th February 2006 Justice Hingston set a timetable for the production and exchange of final submissions.


[2] Apparently, Mrs Parker referred to in Mr Holmes documents filed her submission but inadvertently intituled them as an application.


[3] There is only one application before the Court, 13/95.


[4] There appears to be some confusion on the stage at which this application has reached.


[5] The initial hearing was adjourned, after Professor Crocombe’s evidence and oral submissions were made, at the request of counsel who sought to effect a settlement.


[6] Counsel, Cash and Mitchell filed a memorandum of a proposed settlement and the Court convened to hear that. However at that time Pa Ariki entered the fray stating she wanted to mediate settlement.


[7] Much later, the matter was called again but no progress was made. At that time, the Court stated that to date it had not received any evidence that would persuade the Court to interfere in any way with the 1912 order, and further adjourned the application.


[8] In the eyes of the Court, the matter was still open for the parties to produce further evidence or submissions to advance the rehearing.


[9] Justice Hingston appears to have come to the conclusion that no further evidence is forthcoming and accordingly gave direction for the filing of submissions.


[10] If that is in fact the case, and counsel do not intend to produce any further evidence, then there is a direction that final submissions should now be filed and served as follows:


Applicant by :
31.10.07
Respondent reply by :
30.11.07
Applicant response by :
20.12.07

to the intent that the matter can be set down for hearing during the next Land Court session.


Copy of minute to Counsel and Pa Ariki.


N F Smith
Judge


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ck/cases/CKHC/2007/10.html