Search Results

1. CAC 20002 v Chand [2014] NZREADT 102 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...to avoid liability under s.72. We agree. In Clark, we had found as a matter of fact that there had been oral advice that one of the licensees may benefit financially from the transaction but we still made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. On appeal, Moore J observed that it followed from the oral advice that the licensees understood the moral need to alert the purchaser of the potential benefit, even if they did not know of the specific requirements imposed on them by s.136 (the Co...

2. Holt & Ors as Trustees of the Kahala Trust v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 15 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...between the settling parties. This type of renegotiation was also provided for in the original agreement. [3] The claim proceeded to a formal proof hearing against Mr Arakelian and DVK, and orders were made against them. Mr Arakelian and DVK appealed that decision on the basis that they had not been served with the proceedings. The parties agreed to set aside the original order and bring the claim against DVK and Mr Arakelian back before the Tribunal to be reheard. [4...

3. Gill v Singh [2016] NZIACDT 36 (30 June 2016) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...or her account of the matters charged, there can be no complaint if the Tribunal draws the unfavourable evidentiary inference which absence from the witness box commonly attracts. [36] In Ithaca (Custodians) Ltd v Perry Corporation 6 the Court of Appeal considered what inferences may be drawn from the absence of witnesses. The Court observed: [153] …The absence of evidence, including the failure of a party to call a witness, in some circumstances may allow an inference that the miss...

4. AN v TC LCRO 381/2013 (4 August 2015) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. 6 Review issue [26] The issue to be determined on review is whethe...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 089 Auckland Council v Braines [pdf, 8.2 MB]

   ...[10] Mr Randall's detailed affidavit sets out the background of the Site and the activities on it in detail. This includes prior enforcement action taken by the Council in 2013 which led to an abatement notice and subsequent resolution of an appeal by Mr Braines against that notice by way of orders made in an oral determination of the Court dated 17 September 2013.1 In particular, Mr Randall draws attention to the fourth order which states: The two trailer homes will only be us...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 71 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...recognising it may have been possible for Dr Sawyer to seek to amend them.6 [31] Duress is usually understood as the imposition of illegitimate pressure by threats that coerce a party to enter a contract: McIntyre v Nemesis.7 In McIntyre the Court of Appeal said that contracts procured by duress are voidable by the coerced party unless the agreement has been affirmed.8 [32] In discussing duress the Court said that, originally, it was restricted to threats of physical injury. Subse...

7. Te Whare Maire Trust - Lot 5 DP 8663 (2005) 87 Ōpōtiki MB 238 (87 OPO 238) [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   Minute Book: 87 OPO 238 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT Place: Gisborne Present: CL Wickliffe, Judge K Lardelli, Clerk of the Court Date: 28 April 2005 Panui No: Chambers Application No: A20030001949 Subject: Lot 5 DP 8663 GS5D/1373 -Investigation Legislation: Sections 18, 131 and 132, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Previous Evidence: Introduction 82 Opotiki MB 238-265 and 84 Opotiki MB 136-141 C/- P Helmbright, 73 Buchanan St, Opotiki 14GB Ki

8. Eggo v Tupene - Opape No 1A No 1B (2017) 169 Waiariki MB 45 (169 WAR 45) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...(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). [11] I adopt the reasoning set out by the Court of Appeal in Rameka v Hall as follows: 10 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administratio...

9. BORA End of Life Choices Bill section 7 report [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...enacted, therefore provides a ground, established by law, by which a person may be deprived of their life. 27 At [64]. For example, in Shortland v Northland Health Ltd [1998] 1 NZLR 433 the Court of Appeal held that the Northland Health Board could not be compelled to continue renal dialysis treatment, without which Mr Shortland would die, because the decision to discontinue dialysis was consistent with prevailing medical practices....

10. BORA Border Security Bill [pdf, 72 KB]

    ...such a person affect any relevant "interest protected or recognised by law"? 44.3 Even if there is a prima facie breach of s 27(2), could it be justified in terms of s 5 BORA? 45. As to the first issue, in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Chisholm v Auckland City Council (CA32/02 29 November 2002) it is not clear that an NZIS official making a "decline" decision is to be regarded as a "public authority" within the meaning of s 27(2) BORA. Th...