Search Results

1. Pocock - Allotment 246D1 Waimana Parish (2020) 231 Waiariki MB 273 (231 WAR 273) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...However, there is consolation in the fact that the land does remain Māori freehold land and will, if put up for sale again, be offered back to the whānau. 8 Karena v Whitefield – Omahu 4C Section 6 [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 170 (2018 APPEAL 170). 231 Waiariki MB 279 [27] Given the findings above, the Court makes the following order: (i) pursuant to ss 151,152 and 155(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, the Court confirms the instrument of alienation...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 126 Henderson Travels Ltd v Kaur [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...fails.5 [19] The discretion is broad but must be exercised in the interests of justice. The interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise in weighing up those interests was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:6 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantia...

3. LCRO 4/2021 RQ v WJ (9 February 2022) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Service [16] The role of this Office is to carry out a review of Standards Committee determinations. [17] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involv...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 163 Matajod v Crazy Horse Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...Supreme Court’s observation that “the merits will not generally be relevant where there has been an insignificant delay as a result of a legal adviser’s error and the proposed respondents have suffered no prejudice (beyond the fact of an appeal)”.8 I have already found that the delay was not insignificant; it was not the result of a legal adviser’s error; and if leave is granted to pursue a challenge, Ms Matajod will be exposed to prejudice. [17] The merits of the propo...

5. Paerata v George -Tuaropaki A (Mokai Marae) (2022) 284 Waiariki MB 76 (234 WAR 76) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...that the house belongs to the Mokai Marae Trust. 12 Tihi v Nuku — Ruatoki B Sections 23, 25, 26B, 27, 31, 32, 33B2C2, 38 and 79 and Ruatoki C Sections 11, 12, 15, 17, 18B2, 21, 22B, 23 (Aggregated) [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 531 (2019 APPEAL 531) at [25]. 13 Tihi v Nuku at [25]. 284 Waiariki MB 82 I whakapuaki i te 10:00am i Rotorua, te tuawha o ngā rā o Noema i te tau 2022. C T Coxhead JUDGE

6. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...While the two provisions contain different criteria, the authorities relating to r 4.56 and the general principles developed in the High Court may provide useful guidance to inform the exercise of the discretion under s 221.6 [12] The Court of Appeal has observed that the approach to applications for joinder under r 4.56 is liberal and that it imposes a fairly low threshold.7 As has been noted 4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 221(a). 5 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland R...

7. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Persson [2024] NZLCDT 2 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...undertaken. [17] Ms Town for the Standards Committee refers us to the decision of Davidson 6 to support the proposition that only suspension will provide a satisfactory response to offending at this level. In that case, Mr Davidson was suspended on appeal for a period of nine months. By way of comparison, the nature of the offending was different and, in that case, Mr Davidson had been sentenced to nine months home detention, 200 hours of community work and reparation of $500,000....

8. Family-Court-Associates-position-description-and-appointments-information [pdf, 615 KB]

   ...a very good source of informed opinion on the relative merits of prospective candidates. They will, therefore, be prominent among those consulted. The list of parties who may be contacted includes the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the New Zealand Law Society, Solicitor-General and other organisations or groups representative of lawyers who the Attorney-General believes can contribute names of suitable persons. Such groups may include the New Zealan...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 76 McMillan v Resque Corporation 20/20 Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...preserve the application for sequestration if the Authority’s order remains unsatisfied. That request is dealt with later. [12] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer (Labour Inspector) the Court of Appeal referred to a range of factors to consider in assessing a fine under s 140(6).5 Those factors are not exhaustive but they include the nature of the default (that is whether it is deliberate or wilful), whether it is repeated, without e...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 102 C v P [pdf, 195 KB]

    ...to more effectually dispose of any matter before it according to the substantial merits and equities of the case, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on the application of any parties. In Kidd v Equity Realty Ltd, the Court of Appeal stated the language of s 221 is “broad and untechnical.”8 That said, the discretion bestowed by the subsection is one which must be exercised in a principled 2 For example, Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546 (CA)...