Search Results

1. Tranche 2 of Cabinet and Ministerial advice on changes to clubs and ranges regulations [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...in the Government’s 2024 Legislation Programme with priority category 3 (to be passed by 2024). 55 An Order in Council is required to give effect to changes to Parts 5 and 6 of the Arms Regulations 1992. Impact Analysis Regulatory Impact Statement 56 Cabinet’s impact analysis requirements apply to the proposals set out in this paper. The Ministry of Justice has completed a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). This is provided with this paper. 57 The Ministry of Justice’s Re...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 29 Bunton v Garden City Helicopters Ltd [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...between them. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the court or the Authority— (a) must consider all relevant matters, including any matters that indicate the intention of the persons; and (b) is not to treat as a determining matter any statement by the persons that describes the nature of their relationship. … [3] The leading case on this section is the Supreme Court decision in Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2). 2 I have also found assistance from the decision o...

3. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 Trust (2014) 32 Takitimu MB 63 (32 TKT 63) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...reconstruction. Even so, there is also no dispute that Tauwhareroa Trust owes Mohaka A4 Trust money – the only issue is the quantum. In this context I confirm that, in the absence of credible alternative evidence, on this issue I prefer the statements of the accountants and Ms Smart in particular over that of the former trustees. [52] Equally importantly, the Mohaka A4 trustees will need to demonstrate with evidence that the Tom Gemmell whänau owners in that trust actually co...

4. HH v ASC2 LCRO 33 / 2011 (21 December 2011) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...solicitor. He noted that all other clients to whom he had sold apartments in the building had instructed Ms SX to act on their behalf. By this time of course, Ms SX had already resumed acting for them. [25] HI Law then sent the settlement statement to Ms SX advising that settlement was scheduled for 20 November. Apparently without instruction, Ms SX sought an extension of the settlement date due to the fact that finance had not been arranged. [26] No extension was agreed, an...

5. MacGregor v Craig (Rescission of Confidentiality Orders) [2016] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...court. Part of the reasoning behind refusing access to court documents at this first stage is that access does not further the cause of open justice, as the documents cannot shed light on a proceeding where none has occurred, and when allegations in statements of claim and defence and other documents are contested and not in final form they are less likely to be accurate. Judgments and minutes are in a different category to other court documents. See H v S (Interim Anonymisation) [2016...

6. Education and Training Bill Advice [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...prosecution to prove an accused person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 76. The Bill provides for various strict liability offences.45 Strict liability offences prima facie limit s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act because the accused is required to prove a defence, or disprove a presumption, in order to avoid liability. 77. We consider that any limits on the presumption of innocence by the strict liability offences in the Bill are justified because: a. The offences are in the natu...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 142 Waimakariri District Council [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...a high likelihood that subdivision will escalate as landowners seek to protect their financial future.62 Planning Instruments [43] Ms Whyte, giving planning evidence in support of the notice of motion, addressed the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (‘RPS’) provisions on the rural environment, including primary production (Objective 5.2.1(e)). While the RPS enables development, it also seeks to ensure that any adverse effects of the same do not compromise or foreclose on t...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 186 Menzies v Corrigan [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...application was made. There is also no reference at all to the concerns raised about the application in the court’s minute dated 10 April 2025. 41 Aarts, above n 8, at [40]. 42 See above at [70(b)]. [109] It is not an answer or defence that Mr Anderson was acting on instructions. There is no evidence that he was not. However, Mr Anderson was acting as a representative for Mr Menzies and being paid to do so. [110] When the application for non-party discovery was firs...

9. LCRO 36/2018 AA v SM (19 December 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...against Mr SM in respect of [Firm 2]’s fees for that legal work. Application for review [25] Mr AA filed an application for review on 5 March 2018. 5 Preparation of will [26] He refers to what he sees as a contradiction in Mr SM’s statements made in [Mr SM’s] 4 May 2017 memorandum to the Lawyers Complaints Service, namely: (a) Mr SM’s statement that he “did not act personally for [Mrs] RS or any of her family but knew that [Ms FY] acted for them”; and...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills [pdf, 328 KB]

    IDEA SERVICES LIMITED v CHRISTINE GAEL WILLS [2025] NZEmpC 28 [24 February 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2025] NZEmpC 28 EMPC 415/2023 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN IDEA SERVICES LIMITED Plaintiff AND CHRISTINE GAEL WILLS Defendant Hearing: 26–27 September 2024 (Heard at New Ply