Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 096 AJ & VF Barr Family Trust v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 622 KB]

   ...provide noise mitigation, but also a visual screen for stock and event attendees. The Court directed that the [S] [6] [7] 4 applicant give further consideration to this and provide an appropriate condition. It is clear from paragraph [101] that the Court did not: … find the evidence to demonstrate that the events centre poses unacceptable noise levels and risk of effects on stock or farming operations … At paragraph [133] the Court made a further direction to addre...

2. LCRO 88/2023 VG v FB and SS (30 July 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...issues, being his concern that Mr FB had accepted instructions in circumstances where Mr VG considered that Mr FB would have been aware that he would not be able to complete the retainer, and concern that Ms SS had failed to consider his complaints. [101] Mr VG did not seek to review the complaints he had raised regarding concerns that Mr FB had, when initially representing him on a number of matters, failed to adequately inform him about escalating fees and charged fees that were excess...

3. LCRO 186/2022 DV v AW (30 October 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Act 2006. [100] Other than as modified by this decision, I confirm the determination of the Committee in all other respects. 21 Dr FN submission, above n 18, at [28]. 22 Standards Committee determination at [38] 15 Orders Censure [101] The Court of Appeal has commented on the nature of a censure or reprimand in New Zealand Law Society v B.23 It said: [39] … Both words envisage a disciplinary tribunal, here a Standards Committee, making a formal or official statement...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 225 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Prisha’s Hospitality (2017) Ltd T/A Royal Cambridge Indian Restaurant [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Pecuniary penalties are due [16] The parties agree that pecuniary penalties are properly payable by the defendants, and there is a great deal of commonality in the approach that they say 8 GF v Comptroller, New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, [2023] ERNZ 409 at [162]. ought to be adopted. There is a vast difference in view, however, as to the appropriate level of penalties.9 [17] The purposes of penalties are:10 (a) to punish those who breach minimum emp...

5. Hill v Accident Compensation Corporation (Interest on weekly compensation) [2023] NZACC 216 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...[7] In April 2005, Mr Hill again saw Dr Campbell, who noted “paraesthesia up to mid (R) hand and pain arm on extension of shoulder”. On 9 May 2005, consultation notes described: 1 Hill v Accident Compensation Corporation [2005] NZACC 101. An application for leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 20 March 2006. 3 [Still complains of] paraesthesia R finger/thumb, weak grip, hand pain, weakness, numbness up arm too which he feels is due to 2002 neck accident...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 76 Al-Bustanji and Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc  [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...stake, such as where interim relief will effectively dispose of the proceedings.6 3 Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Minister of Customs [1986] 1 NZLR 423 (CA) at 430; and Minister of Fisheries v Antons Trawling Company Ltd [2007] NZSC 101, (2007) 18 PRNZ 754 at [3]. 4 Whale Watch Kaikoura Ltd v Transport Accident Investigation Commission [1997] 3 NZLR 55 (HC) at 63; and Parmanadan v Minister of Immigration [2010] NZCA 136, [2010] NZAR 424 at [3]. 5 Esekielu v Attorne...

7. Ratima v Ratima - Tahoraiti 2A 12A (2023) 105 Takitimu MB 29 (105 TKT 29) [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...OF THE WAIKARI RATIMA FAMILY TRUST Ngā kaitono Applicants ME And KINGI RATIMA, MILES RATIMA AND KIA RATIMA Ngā kaiurupare Respondents Nohoanga: Hearing 2 September 2020, 84 Tākitimu MB 236-246 3 November 2022, 101 Tākitimu MB 114-125 (Heard at Hastings) Kanohi kitea: Appearances Cara Bennett for Applicants Leo Watson for Respondents Whakataunga: Judgment date 22 September 2023 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ D H STONE...

8. 20241003 Mental Health Bill [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...record of the information able to be used for biometric mapping. 46. Requiring a person to provide biometric information amounts to a search of the person under s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. 22 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 23 The Bill provides that a patient who is subject to an inpatient care order, and who ‘presents special difficulties’ can be declared a ‘restricted patient’ by the Court (cl 133). Clause...

9. LCRO 6/2025 EI v NT (30 April 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...proportionate discipline, the legal profession will maintain its ethical standards and public trust. [100] For the reasons set out at [79]–[94], I am not persuaded that NT’s breach of r 8.7.1 of the Rules requires a disciplinary response. Decision [101] Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is: (a) Reversed as to the finding that NT’s conduct did not breach (in particular) r 8.7.1 of the Rules; (b) Otherwi...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 180 Danske Mobler v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...circumstances.10 The Labour Inspector also accepts that an employer may use ADP for the purposes of calculating payment for FBAPS leave in either of the two circumstances identified in s 9A(1). 66. 9 At [32]. 10 GD (Tauranga) Ltd v Price [2019] NZEmpC 101, [2019] ERNZ 304 at [35]. [27] In the case of Danske Møbler, the Labour Inspector investigated the pay records for one employee in particular. He consistently worked more than his contractually-agreed hours so tha...