Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 108 Butterfield v Alliance Group Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Development [2017] NZEmpC 18 at [6]. payment under s 46 of the Legal Services Act. Where a party seeks an order under s 45(5), in general, a Court will make one.8 [26] The purpose of sections such as s 46 was considered by the Court of Appeal in Laverty v Para Franchising Ltd: they are to compensate, to the extent appropriate, part or all of the countervailing disadvantage caused to unaided parties of not being able to recover their costs from a legally aided opponent.9...

2. Saifiti v Shortcliffe - Francis Rudolph Shortcliffe Whanau Trust (2020) 416 Aotea MB 275 (416 AOT 275) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...children and grandchildren, those are the ones who make the decision. [16] Then again, at 302:6 3 Larkins v Kaitaia - Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) 4 403 Aotea MB 299-302 (403 AOT 299-302) 5 Ibid, at 301 6 Ibid, at 302 https://www.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/Larkins-v-Kaitaia-Waihou-Hutoia-D2A-Block-2013-Maori-Appellate-Court-MB-159-2013-APPEAL-159...

3. Motiti Avocados Limited Submissions - 5 December 2017 [pdf, 148 KB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT'COURT AT AUCKLAND ENV-2016-348-040 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) AND IN THE MATTER of appeals pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act BETWEEN MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-134) NGATI MAKINO HERITAGE TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-140) NGATI RANGINUI IWI INCORPORATED SOCIETY (ENV-2015-AKL-141) Appellants A N D BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent AND Various Section 274 parties SUBMISSIONS ON...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 3 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa O Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Supreme Court noted in Almond v Read 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).10 The qualifier “generally” was used as it was accepted there were circumstances where the lack of merit is so obvious that the Court is justified in refusing to extend time.11 The question then is whether there is that obvi...

5. [2021] NZEmpC 127 AlKazaz v Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd (formerly known as Asparona Ltd) [2021] NZEmpC 126. 6 Applying via reg 6 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 which do not deal with applications to cross examine on affidavits. [11] In Kidd v van Hereen, the Court of Appeal held that the words “special circumstances” are wide, comprehensive, and flexible indicating something abnormal, uncommon or out of the ordinary, but something less than extraordinary or unique.7 The Court in that case obser...

6. [2021] NZIACDT 24 - HT v Shaikh – Sanctions (7 October 2021) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...(counsel lists 12). In Emberson, an adviser’s tardiness resulted in an application no longer meeting the criteria and there was no fine, despite the adviser not engaging with the Tribunal.2 In Guich, also where an adviser’s breach led to an appeal being filed out of time, there was a fine of $1,000 yet the adviser did not adopt a mature attitude, showed no remorse and learned nothing from the complaint.3 [18] Mr Moses submits that Mr Shaikh will already have to contend with...

7. Waaka - Paengaroa North A1 Section 2 Block (2021) 262 Waiariki MB 37 (262 WAR 37) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...However, this needs to considered within the circumstances of the case. [18] Part of the attraction of the sale for Mr Waaka is that he will receive a benefit from the land during his lifetime that is otherwise unavailable. This is particularly appealing given the shares do not currently provide him dividends, kaumātua grants or any benefits. Although, the trust has previously provided dividends and kaumātua grants, as noted in the Trust recent AGM report, all owners’ distrib...

8. Allan v Thomas - Lot 1 Deposited Plan 64773 (2022) 255 Taitokerau MB 288 (255 TTK 288) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...have no jurisdiction to do so. [42] While I have jurisdiction to grant this injunction, I cannot do so on the evidence before me. 9 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60). 255 Taitokerau MB 295 Decision Kupu whakatau [43] Although this application indirectly relates to a Māori Reservation, I have no jurisdiction to determine it. Any such proceeding would have to be brought in the High...

9. National Standards Committee 2 v Mr Y [2023] NZLCDT 1 (12 January 2023) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Standards Committee [2017] NZHC 1824. 10 Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Tregenza [2016] NZLCDT 31. 11 Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 47. 6 [21] In relation to the second charge, the Jefferies matter, on appeal, resulted in a suspension of four months. We accept Mr Napier’s submission that the mitigating features present in this case were not present in Jefferies and we note that Mr Jefferies also misled the Police at the time of his...

10. [2023] NZEnvC 125 Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 436 KB]

    pNRP – Topic 14 – confidentiality order IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2023] NZEnvC 125 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an application for confidentiality orders under section 277 of the Act BETWEEN BAY OF ISLANDS MARITIME PARK INCORPORATED (ENV-2019-AKL-000117) ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (...