Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 247 Courage & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors and EMPC 85/2022 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...employers as well.3 For the second set of proceedings (which I will refer to as the Pilgrim proceedings) I found that an employment relationship existed,4 and that the employer was the person holding the position of Overseeing Shepherd.5 Leave to appeal that judgment has been granted by the Court of Appeal, on limited grounds.6 Special leave has been granted by this Court, in both Courage and Pilgrim, to remove proceedings against the Overseeing Shepherd for lost wages, penalti...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 248 Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Waikato District Council [pdf, 6.9 MB]

   Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 248 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (ENV-2022-AKL-051) TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (ENV-2022-AKL-074) Appellants AND WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Chief Enviro...

3. MLC - Notification of applications - 31 August 2015 [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...Gilroy or Terence Mania Gilroy or Joseph Terence Gilroy - and succession orders made at 70 South Island MB 116 on 15/09/1988 - Application to the Chief Judge 45/93 Veronica Stanaway - Foster 1. Awaiting Administrative Action A20100011554 11/10/2010 Appeal 2010/14 - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) 58/93 Anaha Morehu 3. Awaiting Client Action or Information A20100011554 11/10/2010 Appeal 2010/14 - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) 58/93 Eric Hodge 3. Awaiting Client Action or Information...

4. Barlow v Phillips - Rangitoto Tuhua 55B1B and other blocks (2012) 282 Aotea MB 75 (282 AOT 75) [pdf, 419 KB]

   BARLOW V PHILLIPS MLC 282 Aotea MB 75 [3 May 2012] IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT 282 Aotea MB 75 (282 AOT 75) A20080015133 UNDER Section 238 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangitoto Tuhua 55B1B and other Blocks (Manu Ariki Marae) BETWEEN FAITH BARLOW AND BEVERLY MURAAHI Applicants AND TEINA PHILLIPS First Respondent AND TE KOTAHITANGA SOCIETY INCORPORATED Second Respondent AND WAITUHI

5. [2010] NZEmpC 84 Secretary for Justice v Dodd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...specific that little of value can be taken from them. An exception, however, is the litigation in which relevant principles were restated, which began in the Employment Relations Authority, progressed to this Court,3 continued in the Court of Appeal,4 and went to the Supreme Court in Buchanan v Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue.5 [48] In Buchanan, two employees with otherwise unblemished service whose duties included accessing confidential computerised informatio...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 153 Hayllar v The Goodtime Food Co Ltd [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...them out had been “pre-determined”. [12] The difficulty with the pleadings and submissions relating to these matters is that they deal with issues which are not part of the unjustified dismissal grievance before the Court. As the Court of Appeal noted in Waikato District Health Board v 3 [2011] NZERA Wellington 149 at [5]. Clear, 4 s 114(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) provides that a personal grievance...

7. PR v HG 69/2016 LCRO [pdf, 269 KB]

   LCRO 69/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN PR Applicant AND HG Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Ms PR has applied for a review of a decision by the [City] Standards Committee [X] which determined

8. LCRO 98/2019 EL v SV, DV & JV (31 March 2021) [pdf, 510 KB]

   ...scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act):11 … 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 that...

9. DV, RL, YS and TB v AR LCRO 316/2013 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...Scope of Review [34] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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 that...

10. Brooking v Henderson - Wharekahika A47 (2022) 110 Tairawhiti MB 238 (110 TRW 238) [pdf, 497 KB]

    ...dense and prolific. As His Honour Judge Stone has noted in relation to the previous s 240:11 [8] There are several superior court authorities regarding the principles applicable to the serious step of removal of trustees. They include the Court of Appeal judgments Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick, and the Māori Appellate Court decision of Perenara v Pryor. [9] These authorities support the following general propositions: (a) removal is a serious step and is not undertaken l...