14829 items matching your search terms
...apply to the hearing of a non de novo challenge, since these differ from those relating to a de novo challenge: 5 Minute of 18 July 2016. a) A non de novo hearing is in the nature of an appeal. The challenger or plaintiff is required to show that the Authority’s determination was wrong. 6 b) Thus, the challenger has an onus of persuading the Court of the existence of an error of fact and/or law by the Authority in...
...moved out of the jurisdiction or dissipated. Initially, the Labour Inspector gave this evidence on the topic: I believe that the respondent is liquidating its assets and the directors are preparing to leave New Zealand. I believe that the appeal of the Authority’s determination is merely a stalling tactic to provide the respondent with time to dispose of assets of [the] company and distribute the proceeds of any sale to the directors personally in order to avoid their respons...
...cancel the licence, the Registrar must– (a) include in the notice referred to in subsection (1)(d) the grounds for the decision and the date on which the cancellation takes effect; and (b) specify in the notice that the licensee has a right of appeal to the Tribunal under section 112; and (c) record the cancellation on the register as soon as practicable. [18] Section 56 of the Act prescribes the effective date of cancellation of a licence: 56 Effective date of cancellation...
...court, the Judge considers that the proceedings are or were totally without merit. (3) In determining whether the proceedings are or were totally without merit, the Judge may take into account the nature of any other interlocutory application or appeal involving the party to be restrained, but is not limited to those considerations. (4) The proceedings concerned must be proceedings commenced or continued by the party to be restrained, whether against the same person or different per...
...Williams v New Zealand Police [2021] 2 NZLR 292 (Williams) at [71] to [76]. The parties have each provided submissions on the relevance of this decision to the Tribunal’s determination of this application. While this decision is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeal, it remains a useful current summary of the principles applicable to the strike- out jurisdiction of this Tribunal. [9] Those principles from Lavender, Kropelnicki and Williams are: [9.1] The pleaded facts are a...
...nuanced assessment of competing considerations.4 It is clear that both parties considered they were the successful parties. Both appear to have applied a somewhat simplistic approach to what constitutes success and failure. [10] The Court of Appeal in Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly noted it is possible, and not uncommon, for parties to have mixed success and for no costs order to be made as a result (costs lying where they fall).5 [11] The companies claim that the challenge was broug...
...and incidental to the proceeding up to and including the discontinuance. While there remains a discretion under r 15.23, the onus is on the discontinuing plaintiff to persuade the Court to exercise the discretion in its favour.3 The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the presumption that costs are to be paid is not lightly displaced.4 [3] The issue in this case is whether the presumption referred to by the Court of Appeal should be displaced by the particular circumstances whi...
...by the Authority that, in assessing Ms Day’s application, the Registrar applied the plain meaning of “exceptional circumstances”, which is consistent with the Tribunal’s use of the same criteria in the context of the acceptance of a late appeal. 6 [26] The Authority referred to Catley v Real Estate Agents Authority,2 where the Tribunal adopted the use of the term “exceptional” in Matson v The Real Estate Agents Authority3 as follows:4 …the word “exceptional...
...treats taxpayer money sensibly and responsibly, including recovering any money that is owed to it. [19] Mr Cunningham submits that the company is well funded and that it would not be impacted by a stay application. [20] As the Court of Appeal observed in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd, orders for a stay should be approached with restraint, being the least necessary to preserve the losing party’s position against the prospect of an appeal succeeding...
...finite sentences, as the whole length of the sentence reflects a punitive purpose.6 14. In New Zealand, the courts have not adopted all aspects of the international approach when interpreting s 22 in the Bill of Rights Act.7 However, the Court of Appeal has observed that periodic reviews by the Parole Board are necessary to avoid preventive detention becoming arbitrary:8 On a literal approach to art 9 of the [International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights], the underlying lawfulness...