Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 100 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Authority that led him to seek to reopen the Authority’s investigation rather than to file a challenge; (f) was not aware that a challenge could be filed until that possibility was referred to by the Court; (g) mistakenly applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal thinking that was the option available to him. [10] As to the length of the delay his application stated that there was no prejudice or hardship to either party because the issues were well documented. Instea...

2. Murrell - Succession to Taurua Heihei [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1215 (2021 CJ 1215) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...proof of the flaw identified, either through the production of evidence not available or not known of at the time the order was made or through submissions on the law. [11] The Chief Judge’s jurisdiction was recently described by the Court of Appeal in Inia v Julian as follows:4 … the powers vested in the Chief Judge under s 44(1) of the Act fall in two parts. The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mis...

3. Wiringi - Succession to Ngahuiatapu Rogers [2024] Chief Judge's MB 144 (2024 CJ 144) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicants must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [13] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the R...

4. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v Mr V [2023] NZLCDT 6 (21 March 2023) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...standards or such serious negligence as, although not deliberate, to portray indifference and an abuse of the privileges which accompany registration as a medical practitioner.” [85] Kirby J's dicta was adopted by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v C where it was held that intentionality is not a necessary ingredient of misconduct. The Court stated: 9 Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O’Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 15....

5. Gwak and Kim TRI-2020-100-006 Procedural Order 11 [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...that they were unaware that they were able to join other parties to this claim. (b) The claimants say that the joinder application to join their lawyers was further complicated by subsequent removal applications from two respondents and an appeal they launched against the removal of one of those respondents. They say that they had to attend to “three continuous proceedings of two second removal applications and an appeal to the High Court between May 2021 and April 2023�...

6. [2024] NZREADT 17 - YM v REAA (11 June 2024) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...provides the data; (d) An attachment received via email on 11 April 2024: Appendix C – original telephone file note. [19] The Tribunal decided in KN v The Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority that it would follow the test used for appeals (under s 111 of the Act) to assess whether further evidence should be permitted in review applications (under s 112).5 The Tribunal must be satisfied that it is the interests of justice to admit the fresh evidence, having regard to th...

7. [2025] NZREADT 14 – SI v REAA (15 May 2025) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...[2011] 2 NZLR 1 at [32]. 5 [11] It was submitted by the Registrar that, subject to these limitations, the Registrar’s decision must be confirmed, even if the Tribunal might come to a different decision on the merits if it was a general appeal. [12] We accept counsel’s submissions as to the nature of this review. We will, in deciding whether these limited grounds of review have been made out, need to make some assessment of the merits, without reaching any conclusion on th...

8. Wild v Ministry for Primary Industries (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 69 [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...directed towards courts and tribunals, counsel and others, including unsubstantiated and scandalous accusations, has been found to constitute an abuse of process and has resulted in strike out.15 In O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society, the Court of Appeal observed that such conduct is unfair to others involved in the proceeding and undermines confidence in the administration of justice:16 [17] Limits are enforced because it is inimical to the administration of justice to permit abus...

9. [2025] NZLCDT 19 Wellington Standards Committee 1 v Mason (2 April 2025) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...this matter, before swearing his affidavit, despite the LCRO decision having been available at least the previous week. [20] Also, in terms of previous appearances before the Tribunal, Ms Mason was before the Tribunal in 2015 as a result of her appeal against a refusal of the New Zealand Law Society to issue her with a practising certificate. That refusal had its genesis in the liquidation of the company under which Ms Mason had operated her practice. It had been liquidated by t...

10. [2011] NZEmpC 148 Service and Food Workers Union PSA v Pact Group [pdf, 119 KB]

    ...not met. [48] It is not appropriate to read this extended meaning into s 82. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the scheme of this part of the Act to do so. In reaching this conclusion, I am guided very much by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc (No 2) 10 . In that case, the Chief Judge held that there is no lockout in terms of s 82 unless the demand made by the employer is lawful, that is one...