title: Data maze deciphered

authors: White, Elizabeth Jayne

abstract: Research in the classroom often means long periods of time hanging out with teachers and children as they go about their everyday work. Waikato University lecturer Jayne White argues the case for units of analysis to refine the researcher’s focus, so data generation responds to the questions being asked and the methodology underpinning it.

text: Data maze deciphered Research in the classroom often means long periods of time hanging out with teachers and children as they go about their everyday work. Waikato University lecturer Jayne White argues the case for units of analysis to refine the researcher’s focus, so data generation responds to the questions being asked and the methodology underpinning it.

year: 2010

title: Where the earthly meets the ethereal

authors: Chevalier-Watts, Juliet

subjects: Mudharabas

abstract: 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

text: Where the earthly meets the ethereal 2020 has been a year of challenges and surprises in so many regards, and in keeping with this, Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2019] NZHC 406 represented a surprise for the New Zealand High Court, at least in terms of its subject-matter, as it was the first time a Mudharaba agreement has come before the courts. While this type of agreement is well known in Islamic law, or Sharia law, it is likely not so well known in New Zealand and certainly has not made its presence known in court before.  

A Mudharaba agreement is a type of partnership that aims to make a profit.  The lender, or investor (the rab al maal), provides money or capital to the borrower, or investment manager, or entrepreneur (mudareb or al-mudharib). The mudareb provides the knowledge and labour in the investment and management of the funds.  One of the key aspects of a Mudharaba contract is that any losses that may arise from the agreement will not be shared.  If there are losses, the lender will lose that money and the only losses suffered by the mudareb will be their time and future profits, as well potentially their reputation.  However, the profits of the agreement may be shared between the parties, as agreed prior to signing the contract (Fa’agatu at [5] and [6]; “Mudarabah” Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance <www.islamic-banking.com/explore/islamic-finance/shariah-rulings/question-answers-shariah-rulings/mudarabah>; and “Mudaraba” ThomsonReuters Practical Law <uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/>).

In this comment, and mostly following the approach of the Court, I will be reflecting on the issue of religion and its place in the New Zealand legal landscape in this specific context, and then I will turn to the matters of undue influence, and of breach of fiduciary obligation.

year: 2020

title: Kāinga tahi, kāinga rua: A kaupapa Māori response of Te Puea Memorial Marae.

authors: Lee-Morgan, Jenny Bol Jun

abstract: In the winter of 2016, Te Puea Memorial Marae (TPMM) initiated a kaupapa Māori marae-led response, opening their doors to vulnerable whānau seeking emergency housing. Following in the legacy of Te Puea Herangi,¹ the marae answered the call of homeless whānau in Auckland and in doing so disrupted the dominant Auckland housing narrative where the government had until that time refused to acknowledge homelessness as a serious issue. In the full view of the media, TPMM not only made the reality of homelessness visible by caring for 181 people (of all ethnicities and cultural backgrounds), but named the housing situation in Auckland as a ‘crisis’. ²

text: Kāinga tahi, kāinga rua: A kaupapa Māori response of Te Puea Memorial Marae. In the winter of 2016, Te Puea Memorial Marae (TPMM) initiated a kaupapa Māori marae-led response, opening their doors to vulnerable whānau seeking emergency housing. Following in the legacy of Te Puea Herangi,¹ the marae answered the call of homeless whānau in Auckland and in doing so disrupted the dominant Auckland housing narrative where the government had until that time refused to acknowledge homelessness as a serious issue. In the full view of the media, TPMM not only made the reality of homelessness visible by caring for 181 people (of all ethnicities and cultural backgrounds), but named the housing situation in Auckland as a ‘crisis’. ²

year: 2017