Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 59 Costley v Waimea Nurseries Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...for legal aid was sent on 4 February 2011. 6. The plaintiff was able to pay his solicitors a personal cheque for the filing fee on Monday, 7 February 2011 and confirmed that he wished to proceed. 7. The plaintiff’s counsel miscalculated the appeal period so that he saw the period for filing the challenge as expiring on Tuesday, 8 February 2011. ... [9] Ms Ironside submitted that the failure to file the statement of claim on time indicated a “careless, indifferent or cav...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 76 N Ltd v O [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...three months, plus the additional time that a determination would take to be issued. [14] Mr Pollak cited Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd 3 where the full Court dealt with the change in the wording of s 125 of the Act and cited from the Court of Appeal judgment in Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees 4 that there was no dispute between the parties in that case that the onus of proof of lack of practicability rests with the employer. 5 The full Court in Angus stated: 6...

3. Regulatory Impact Statement December 2009 Legal Aid Review [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...public. This risk will be mitigated by the establishment of a statutory officer (the Legal Services Commissioner), accurate communications as to the independence of the functions of the statutory officer, and the continued existence of an independent appeal body to review decisions of the statutory officer. It is common in public sector restructurings that a proportion of affected staff, often key employees, leave to pursue new career opportunities. A change management team situated wit...

4. Trustees of Aata Paora Keretene Ahu Whenua Trust v Cherrington - Motatau 3B2B3 (2015) 102 Taitokerau MB 43 (102 TTK 43) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...6 Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvey Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129. 7 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309. 8 Eriwata v Trustees of Waitara SD S6 and 91 Land Trust – Waitara SD s5 and 91 Land Trust (2005) 15 Aotea Appeal MB 192 (15 WGAP 192). 9 36 Kaikohe MB 247 (36 KH 247). 102 Taitokerau MB 47 newspaper. At that meeting a resolution was passed by the owners in attendance directing the trustees to file the current applications. [19] As su...

5. Howell v Jaram - Omaio 43 Section 4 (2014) 104 Waiariki MB 73 (104 WAR 73) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...depicted in the plan produced by Overington Surveyors dated March 2014 and it is to remain at 2022m² in size. [24] The interim order for injunction made at 86 Waiāriki MB 244-246 is cancelled. [25] The trustees are directed, subject to any appeal rights, to respect the area now allocated to Mr Jaram. As the substantive issue has been addressed, application A20130010133 is dismissed. Pronounced in Open Court at 4:30pm in Gisborne on the 10 th day of September 2014....

6. Braniff – Motatau 2 Section 52B (2015) 111 Taitokerau MB 299 (111 TTK 299) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...D2A. 4 [20] More importantly, and as set out above, there are no objections to this two-step approach. 4 Larkins v Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 189 (2013 APPEAL 159). 111 Taitokerau MB 304 [21] Turning then to the whānau trust, it is clear that all of Mate’s children agree that the shares should be vested into a whānau trust. Moerangi and Fiona have raised concerns over the terms...

7. LQ Burgess 28 June 2014 NZSHD 9 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...The Police Objection noted that the applicant was due to appear next to answer the charges before the Waitakere District Court on 26 May 2014. [8] On 22 April 2014 the applicant wrote to the Authority. In her letter she said “I wish to lodge an appeal and request a hearing to have this matter adjudicated”. The Authority took this to mean that the applicant was requesting a hearing in person before the Authority pursuant to s.26(1) of the Act. [9] In a Minute dated 26 April 2014...

8. Livingstone v The Trustees of Lake Taupō Forest Trust – Lake Taupō Forest Trust (2012) 295 Aotea MB 6 (295 AOT 6) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...trustees through regular elections. 5 The trust has thousands of owners and the issue of rotation was highly contentious. Proceedings continued over several years and involved proceedings before this, the Appellate Court and even the Court of Appeal. Put another way, the owners and trustees had been engaged in a 3 Proprietors of Mangakino Township Inc (1999) 73 Taupö MB 30 4 Rihia v Te Rūnanganui o Ngäti Hikairo...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 222 Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan re-issued [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...

10. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 85 KB]

    ...relationship. 1 Daniels v Complaints Assessment Committee 2 of the Wellington District Law Society [2011] 3 NZLR 850. 4 [12] Mr Hodge referred us to a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Law Society of New South Wales v McNamara.2 In that matter the Court held that the attempt to deceive the Law Society was serious enough, but the attempt to deceive the Statutory Committee (the equivalent of the Tribunal) was eve...