Search Results

1. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC rebuttal Stephen Brown [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...Bay (Palm Beach) or – within western Waiheke – at Oneroa Bay, Huruhi Bay and Owhanake Bay. Most of these bays (Man O’War is the obvious exception) are flanked by conventional suburban development, yet still retain a high level of aesthetic appeal and are also highly attractive from a recreation standpoint; indeed, far more so than Matiatia Bay. Much of this appeal clearly resides in a quite ‘hard edged’ interplay of headlands, promontories and rock shoals with open, sand...

2. Huata-Kupa v Tataraakina C -Tataraakina C Trust (2015) 40 Tākitimu MB 207 (40 TKT 207) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...the degree of success achieved by the respondent and the time required for effective preparation. 1 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64) 2 Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Takitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184) 3 Manuirirangi v Paraninihi Ki Waitotara Inc – Paraninihi Ki Waitotara (2002) 15 Aotea Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64) 4 De Loree v Mokomoko – Hiwarau...

3. Pouwhare v Auld - Oparau No 1 Block and Pirongia West 12B3D (2015) 95 Waikato Maniapoto MB 167 (95 WMN 167) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...jurisdiction, what costs if any, should be awarded in favour of the respondent? The jurisdiction argument [12] The applicants submit that Judge Milroy did not make any orders in respect of costs, nor were costs reserved. The respondent did not appeal that decision and it should be treated as final. [13] The applicants further submit that had Judge Milroy intended that costs would be addressed at the time any order for compensation was finalised, her judgment would have provided...

4. Otago Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...public interest. There is now a well- established bank of precedents in this Tribunal regarding suppression, reflecting the general precedent outside this jurisdiction. [48] In R v Liddell10 the discretion to suppress was held by the Court of Appeal not to be the subject of any code or legislative prescription. Instead, when considering an application for suppression, a balancing exercise is to be undertaken, weighing the public interest in knowing against the private interests...

5. CAC 20003 v Fourie [2014]NZREADT 71 [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...persons involved in proceedings. [60] We considered the principles relevant to applications under s.108 in An Agent v Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 10028) [2012] NZREADT 02. There we held that we had the power to make non-publication orders on appeals from decisions of Complaints Assessment Committees and we set out the principles to consider when determining when to make such orders. Relevantly, we relied on Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd where Her Honour Elias CJ said at par...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 90 Talbot v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...something more than mere acquiescence or inaction on behalf of the employer was required, citing Cashmere Capital Limited v Carroll 6 in support of this proposition. There the Supreme Court referred with approval to observations made by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Fisheries Ltd v Napier City Council, drawing a distinction between consent and acquiescence: 7 In the course of its discussion in the New Zealand Fisheries case the Court referred to the judgment of the Englis...

7. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 43 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...rental for the remedial period for 26 weeks at $950 a week; $24,700. Interest. Costs. Page | 7 General Damages [13] The claimants have applied for general damages of $35,000. Sunset Terraces and Byron Avenue Court1 of Appeal decisions establish that the appropriate measure depends on individual circumstances. However, for owner occupiers the usual award will be in the vicinity of $25,000. White J in Coughlan v Abernethy 2 confirmed that standard rat...

8. GN v HJ LCRO 30/2015 (22 June 2016) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...and Scope of Review [46] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for...

9. AE v Decision to prosecute LCRO 93/2013 & 338/2013 (11 March 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...determination which contained only the resolution to refer matters to the Tribunal without including any 2 discussion or reasons is in accordance with the provisions of s 158 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Orlov v NZLS.1 However, this presents something of a dilemma on review, as this Office is required by s 213(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to provide reasons for its decision. In addition, the High Court held in...

10. AM v ZM LCRO 48 / 2010 (25 February 2011) [pdf, 131 KB]

    ...Kyle v Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee (1999) 21 WAR 56 involved disciplinary proceedings against an Australian practitioner charged with attempting to mislead the court. The adverse finding against the Practitioner was unsuccessfully appealed. The appellant sought to argue that the case against him was flawed in that the Complaints Committee (and the Tribunal) found that there was an attempt to deliberately mislead the Court, but had at the same time accepted that there...