Search Results

1. 6 November 2017 Clearwater Mussels Limited v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...the case if the hearing time allocated by the Court is not used. 2. EVIDENCE The parties must (subject to any existing timetable order or direction of the Court): Exchange no later than 10 working days from the date of hearing - all statements and evidence that will be produced to the Court at the hearing. 3. MĀORI LANGUAGE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS If any party or witness: 1. wishes to speak Māori at the hearing under the Māori Language Act 1987, or 2. has spec...

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 5/08 Skinner & Anor v Stayinfront Inc & Ors [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...circumstances, I accept his submission that his oversight should not prejudice the plaintiffs’ position. [9] The application for the affidavit to be disregarded is refused. 2. Strike out of entire proceedings [10] The defendant relied on the defence of affirmation as the ground for striking out the amended statements of claim in their entirety. Mr Towner submitted that the plaintiffs are seeking to avoid the settlement agreements by pleading duress so they can proceed with...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 065 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 576 KB]

   ...Northland Regional Plan was notified. In the Decisions Version of the plan, part of the SEA area became a Marsden Point Port Zone (MPPZ) and the SEA designation over that part was removed. [3] For est & Bird filed an appeal seeking the reinstatement of the SEA in the area. The effect being to make reclamation in the area a non-complying activity. [4] Northport Limited (Northport) are a s 274 party to the appeal. Northport agreed with the reinsertion of the SEA layer in the area...

4. BORA Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...criminal proceedings must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. Strict liability offences give rise to an issue of inconsistency with section 25(c) because the defendant is required to prove (on the balance of probabilities) a defence to escape liability; whereas, in other criminal proceedings a defendant must merely raise a defence in an effort to create reasonable doubt. Where a defendant is unable to prove the defence, then she or he could be convicted even thou...

5. Gwak & Kim TRI-2020-100-006 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...Zealand Limited3, Auckland Council v Weathertight Homes Tribunal4 and Hermann v Weathertight Homes Tribunal5. [15] The High Court has held that it was not a question of asking whether a respondent was “entirely” prevented from raising a defence, but whether – as between the parties – it was “just, or fair and appropriate”, that a respondent’s defences were limited to the extent they were.6 [16] In so doing, the Tribunal is required to undertake a balancing exerci...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 75 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...Caisley, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 10 July 2018 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF JUDGE K G SMITH STRIKE OUT [1] Air New Zealand Ltd has applied to strike-out three causes of action in the fifth amended statement of claim by Georgina Rachelle. They are described in the pleadings as workplace discrimination, defamation and sexual harassment. [2] Ms Rachelle maintains that none of these causes of action should be struck out. Jurisdiction...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 118 Briggs-Barron v Ladbrook Law Ltd [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...[10] I turn to consider whether such costs are reasonable. While the claim did not progress to a substantive hearing, the defendant was required to take a number of steps prior to the date of discontinuance. These included consideration of the statement of claim, drafting a statement of defence and counterclaim, consideration of the plaintiff’s statement of defence to the counterclaim, preparation for and attendance at a telephone conference and filing associated documentation, an...

8. P and R v EQC and MIS [2024] CEIT-2023-0014 [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...REFERRAL OF A QUESTION OF LAW 26 March 2024 ___________________________________________________________________________ REFERRAL OF A QUESTION OF LAW 1) In its response to P and R’s application, MIS has raised limitation defences. At the first case management conference I indicated that these defences would be heard as an initial issue. A copy of my minute of 14 February 2024, setting out the draft issues list at paragraph [16] is annexed (the First Minute).

9. BORA Evidence Amendment Bill [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...statement rule in s 35. 4. This Bill is the Government’s response to the Commission’s recommendations. With the exception of the previous consistent statement rule, the Bill implements the recommendations. In relation to the previous consistent statements rule, the Bill implements an alternative proposal put forward by the Commission. [2] The Bill also makes changes to rules governing access to video records of evidence. 5. The rights and freedoms engaged by the Bill are: 5.1 In...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 41 Shortland v Alexander Construction Co Ltd [pdf, 38 KB]

    ...dismissal or action occurred. [14] I note here that, by way of an alternative ground of defence, the defendant sought to rely on justification of the plaintiff’s dismissal by reason of redundancy. This had not been pleaded in the statement of defence. When I raised that difficulty in the course of the hearing, Mr Webster sought leave to amend the statement of defence to include it. On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Petherick opposed that course. As it was common ground...