Search Results

1. Nelson Standards Committee v Ord [2025] NZLCDT 4 (17 January 2025) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...and other similar applications which, while given civil numbers in the District Court, are ancillary to orders made in its criminal jurisdiction. So far as High Court proceedings are concerned, we consider that Dr Ord should be able to act on appeals from criminal decisions in the District Court, or orders made in ancillary proceedings such as limited licenses. Suppression [42] There is an Order suppressing the name and identifying details of the complainant, including any detail...

2. LCRO 130/2021 TF v SM (8 May 2025) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...What is the nature and scope of the review? [67] The High Court has said of the nature and scope of the process of review under the Act that:8 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. 6 Section 206(2) of the Act. 7 Section 206(2A) of the Act. 8 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [3...

3. Derham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Gradual Process Injury; Suspension of Entitlements) [2025] NZACC 026 (17 February 2025) [pdf, 246 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2025] NZACC 026 ACAR 074/24 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN CARL DERHAM Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 3 December 2025 Heard at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: Mr Hinchcliff for the appellant Ms Becroft for the respondent Judgment: 17 Fe...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 022 Waikato Regional Council v Waikato District Council [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   Waikato Regional Council v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 022 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) BETWEEN WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENV-2021-AKL-000073) AMBURY PROPERTIES LIMITED (ENV-2021-AKL-000081) NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY - WAKA KOTAHI (ENV-2021-AKL-000086) Appellants AND WAIKATO DI...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 27 C v Air Nelson [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...of the Act. [49] It would, however, be illogical for the Court to not be able to consider the factual rationale for the employer’s belief. The principles are, in my view, succinctly contained within the following statement by the Court of Appeal in the Airline Stewards and Hostesses case where at 993 the Court said: What are reasonable grounds for a belief of misconduct must depend on the facts of each case. But at the time when the employer dismissed the employee the empl...

6. Katu v Peni - Tiroa E and Te Hape B (2015) 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 157 (105 WMN 157) [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...as a trustee. (2) The court may at any time, in respect of any trustee of a trust to which this section applies, enforce the obligations of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise). [19] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal commented on the extent of the Court’s jurisdiction under s 238 of the Act: 10 Apart from the inherent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court and conferred on the Māori Land Court by s 237, the Māori Land Court has wide superviso...

7. Non-discrimination standards for government guidelines [pdf, 392 KB]

   ...political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society. 10 R v Oakes [1986] 15 CR 103. 23 How to apply section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act The New Zealand Court of Appeal, in Moonen v Film & Literature Review Board,11 has developed a set of guidelines for assessing whether any limitation imposed on a right or freedom affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act is “demonstrably justified” in terms of sec...

8. Huata v Robin - Rotopounamu 1B1A (2017) 60 Takitimu MB 7 (60 TKT 7) [pdf, 339 KB]

   60 Tākitimu MB 7 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT A20150004913 A20150003172 A20140012724 UNDER Section 67, 315 and 326(b), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rotopounamu 1B1A BETWEEN GARY HUATA, BRENDA NICOLE KUPA, PATON LUXFORD, DAVID WHATANUI PUNA, TE ROERA CLIVE DAVID PUNA AND JEAN YORSTEN AS TRUSTEES OF ROTOPOUNAMU 1B1A AHU WHENUA TRUST AND PETER ROBIN, RAYMOND PUNA, NI

9. [2018] NZEnvC 122 Lee Valley Limestone v Tasman District Council [pdf, 4.6 MB]

   BEFORETHEEN~RONMENTCOURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 122 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act BETWEEN LEE VALLEY LIMESTONE LTD (ENV-2017 -WLG-000065) Appellant AND TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge B P Dwyer Environment Commissioner W R Howie Environment Commissioner I Buchanan Hearing: 10-12 April 2018 at Nelson Appearances: J Ironside for the Appellant...

10. The Māori Trustee v Smith - Waipaoa 5A2 (2017) 72 Tairāwhiti MB 57 (72 TRW 57) [pdf, 546 KB]

    ...and prosecute applications in the Court for the appointment of new trustees, the variation of the trust order and for the determination per s 18(1)(a) of the Act for ownership of buildings; (c) at the appropriate time, to then discontinue the appeal against the decision of this Court dated 18 October 2016.4 [8] The parties also agree that they will seek the Court’s approval for the appointment of an independent expert to review the administration of the estate in accordance...