3790
NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 157

applications to participate in the pilot are available from the Authority’s Information Officer. Further queries on this matter should be directed to Dr Hugh Baber on Telephone: (04) 474 0632.

gn6858

Dunedin Community Law Centre

Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Public Notice

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
The State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986

This notice concerns 22 Karemea Street, Murupara and Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

The land at 22 Karemea Street, Murupara, is described in legal terms as all that parcel of land containing 756 square metres, more or less, being Section 100, Block XIII, Galatea Survey District and being all the land comprised and described in certificate of title 49C/175 (South Auckland Registry).

The land was once owned by the Crown. It was transferred to a State-Owned Enterprise under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986.

There is a special notice or “memorial” on the certificate of title for the land which provides that, if the Waitangi Tribunal recommends it, the land shall be resumed by the Crown and returned to Maori ownership (see sections 27A and 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986).

The current owner of the land, ROLAND STEVEN MASON (also known as MEIHANA), has applied to the Waitangi Tribunal to have this notice removed. This has been done under section 8D of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

ANY MAORI PERSON WHO CONSIDERS THAT THEY, OR ANY GROUP WHICH THEY BELONG TO, HAS A CLAIM TO MAKE TO THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL ABOUT THIS LAND SHOULD SUBMIT THEIR CLAIM TO THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999.

Section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, describes what a claim is. Claims may be posted or sent to the Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal, Seabridge House, 110 Featherston Street (P.O. Box 5022), Wellington.

If no claim about this land is made to the Waitangi Tribunal before the 7th day of January 1999, then the Tribunal may recommend that the land no longer be liable to be resumed by the Crown and returned to Maori ownership under section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986.

Dated at Dunedin this 21st day of September 1998.

Inserted by the Applicant’s Agent:

STEPHEN TURNER of the Dunedin Community Law Centre.

52 Filleul Street, Dunedin.

gn6857

Courts

Judicature Act 1908

Court of Appeal Procedures Adopted

Pursuant to sections 58C (1) and 58E (1) of the Judicature Act 1908, those Judges of the Court of Appeal holding office under section 57 (2) of the Judicature Act 1908, have adopted the following procedures.

Assignment of Judges to the Divisions of the Court of Appeal

The Judges of the Court of Appeal have adopted the following procedure for assignment of Judges to act as members of a criminal or civil division of the Court:

• The Court will prepare periodically a forward planning programme covering the anticipated sittings of the divisions.
• The President, acting President, or nominee, will determine which appeals are appropriate for hearing by a division comprising 3 members of the Court.
• Assignment to particular appeals or a particular appeal will be by the President, the acting President, or nominee, who where appropriate will consult with other members of the Court. Assignment will be with the concurrence of the Chief Justice and on a time period or case by case basis, taking into account the forward planning programme and the availability of Judges.
• The members of the Court will consult regularly to review the assignment process in the light of the ongoing workload of the divisions and the efficient dispatch of business.

Appeals of Sufficient Significance for Full Court

The Judges of the Court of Appeal have adopted the following procedure for determining whether a case is of sufficient significance to warrant the consideration of a Full Court:

• Practice notes will require parties to notify the Court at an appropriate stage of the proceeding if a Full Court is sought.
• Before final confirmation of a fixture the President or his nominee will assess the significance of the appeal taking into account:
  (a) the importance of the issues, including any legal, social and general economic implications;
  (b) whether it is appropriate to reconsider a previous decision of the Court;
  (c) the desirability of resolving any conflicting decisions of the High Court;
  (d) the request (if any) by a party for a Full Court hearing;
  (e) any other relevant matters, including the availability of Judges.
• The appeal will be assessed as “suitable”, “possibly suitable” or “unsuitable”.
• Appeals assessed as “suitable” will be considered by the Full Court.
• Appeals assessed as “possibly suitable”, and any other appeal to which (d) above applies will be referred to at least 2 other members, and following consultation those members will decide (by majority) whether the appeal is or is not of sufficient significance.