14606 items matching your search terms
...Extend Time to File Documents; 8: Search and Freezing Orders; 11: Amended Challenges Incorporating Costs Determinations; 14: Prosecutions for Offences Under Employment Relations Act 2000; and 15: Sealed Judgments and Certificates of Judgment for Appeals and Other Purposes.
...Applicant’s application for review of the Registrar’s decision is dismissed and the Registrar’s decision is confirmed. [36] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules 2016. ___________________ C Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ G Denley Member __________________...
...under s 244, the Court cannot exercise its powers unless satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of support for the variation amongst beneficiaries. 2 Larkins v Kataia – Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) at [19] – [28]. 339 Waiariki MB 187 [17] Taking into account both the level of support, and the difficulty in taking into account the views of beneficiaries when only Kāwai can vote, I will not accept a term where only...
...relatively complex to describe for users of Tier 1 statistics and to maintain as an ongoing system for producing statistics. Nevertheless such methods are used (eg probably in Scotland, The Scottish Government, 2013). The second option is more appealing conceptually and consistent with some current Corrections measures (eg re- imprisonment rate of released prisoners). However, for Tier 1 purposes we recommend against such complications. First, this complicates the calculation and ex...
DE BRUIN V CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD NZEmpC CHCH [2012] NZEmpC 110 [11 July 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2012] NZEmpC 110 CRC 4/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN KEES DE BRUIN Plaintiff AND CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Defendant Hearing: 5-7 June 2012 (Heard at Christchurch) Counsel: Andrew McKenzie, counsel for the plaintiff Penny Shaw, counsel fo
...legislation or rules that the practitioner may have breached. In this regard the reliance on Kollar v Civil Aviation Authority (14 May 1997, High Court, Christchurch, John Hansen J, AP76/97) was misplaced. That in that case the defendant successfully appealed a summary conviction for breaching the Civil Aviation Regulations. The charges flowed from a ballooning accident in which three people died. That kind of proceeding has little in common with a professional disciplinary process. I...
...uncertainty and have been required to move out of their home while the repairs had been carried out. Page | 15 [39] The decision of the High Court in Findlay Family Trust4 confirms that, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Byron Avenue the usual award per unit for occupiers is $25,000. I am not satisfied that there is any justification for reducing what has been awarded by the Courts as the maximum bench mark for an award of general damages to c...
...correct that construction problems with the jamb flashings and other details might have been avoided had appropriate construction details been included either on the plans themselves or in documents attached to the plans. However, the Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces1 held that Councils did not need to ensure manufacturer’s specifications were attached to consent 1 North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 [201...
...subsequent owners, in particular regarding the issue of building consents, the carrying out of inspections (if the Council has done the inspections), and the issue of a Code Compliance Certificate. This principle was established by the Court of Appeal in Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 513, and confirmed most recently in Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Ltd & Ors, High Court Auckland, CIV 2004-404-1065, 22 December 2006 (Baragwanath J). [45] Here counsel for...
...a copy of Judge Wainwright’s report was provided to parties for comment prior to a final decision being issued by the Chief Judge. [28] Ms Zwaan and Mr Webster both opposed the request on the basis that in effect it amounted to an informal appeal of my recommendation and could lead to further rounds of submissions and hearings, resulting in added costs to the parties, before the matter even reached the Chief Judge. [29] I have examined the decision referred to by Mr Harman and n...