14338 items matching your search terms
SUMMARY Case: Sell & Anor v Harris & Ors File No: TRI 2008-101-000001/ DBH 02592 Court: WHT Adjudicator: P McConnell Date of Decision: 13 May 2009 Background The claimants filed a claim in the Tribunal for damages arising from their leaky home. In seeking an award of $285,160.88 for the loss they suffered, the claimants pursued claims against the first respondent (Mr Harris - builder), the second respondent (Auckland City Council - territorial authority), the th
...Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP) and Riddifordv Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Takitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184). These are authorities for the following principles: 3 Henare v Maori Trustee -Parengarenga 30 (2012) 2012 MaoriAppellate CaurtMB 540 (2012 APPEAL 540) at 541-543. ( ( 2013 Chief Judge's MB 251 a) The Court has au absolute and unlimited discretion as to costs; b) Costs normally follow the event; c) A successful party should be awarded a reasonable contribution to...
...the main subject matter with which the proceedings were concerned and to which seven of the 12 charges related – that is the Barge proceedings. [3] Mr Dorbu’s involvement in those proceedings is best summarised by reading from the Court of Appeal judgment in that case which we record at paragraph [69] of our June decision and I repeat that now: “... Standing back and looking objectively at the available material, the following is revealed. Once Mr Barge had turned down the $3...
...Rights/Human Rights Team Footnotes 1 R v Keegstra [1990] 3 SCR 697,729,826 2 RJR MacDonald v Attorney-General of Canada (1995) 127 DLR (4th)1 3 In applying section 5, the Ministry of Justice has regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260 Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754 and Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v...
...Rights Act. Jeff Orr Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel Margaret Dugdale Policy Manager, Bill of Rights/Human Rights Public Law Group Footnotes 1 In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260 Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754 and Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v...
...beneficiary parents, and 18 and 19 year old beneficiaries considered at significant risk of long term welfare dependency. 7. The Bill makes several changes to the Social Security Act unrelated to the extension of the Youth Service: limiting third party appeals, authorising payment of terminal benefits into deceased beneficiaries’ accounts, and authorising payment of money on payment cards to young people. These changes do not engage the Bill of Rights Act. 8. The Bill also retrospe...
...proceedings, I am not satisfied that there is such a strong case for security that causes this case to be an exception to the Court’s longstanding reluctance to make such orders, other than in truly exceptional cases. Further, as the Court of Appeal noted in AS McLauchlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd, 7 the Court should also be shown that the claim has little chance of success. That has not been established, at least to this point, by the defendant. [18] Finally in this analysis, the...
...either publication, or non-publication of decisions. However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [41] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: “[T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the r...
...of Police (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31. [6.8.4] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. DISCUSSION [11] In our view the Police correctly submit Ms Tan’s conduct of the case needlessly added to the difficulty and cost of the proceedings....
...that an error was made in the presentation of the facts of the case to the Court at 137 Napier MB 17 as the Will was not taken into consideration. 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167-216 (2010 APPEAL 167) 3 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 4 dated 8 th March 1981 5 Will of Pani Te Wairemana Morris (8 March 1981) 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 798 [13] It is therefore appropriate for me to exercise my jurisdi...