Search Results

1. Ching v Regmi & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...concerning the liability of a builder, Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Limited3 the High Court apportioned 80 per cent of liability to the building parties and 20 per cent to the Council. This apportionment reflects that made by the Court of Appeal in Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson.4 In Todd on Torts the author notes the generally accepted allocation of responsibility between builder and Council as 80 percent/20 percent. I accept Ms Harrison’s submission and determin...

2. BORA Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...[123]. 7 Ibid. 8 Cooper v Attorney-General [1996] 3 NZLR 480, 484. a decision to recommend an Order without proper consultation, pass a resolution to disallow that Order.9 31. On balance, we therefore consider that the restriction on appeal rights in judicial review proceedings in cl 22 means the right to judicial review is impaired no more than reasonably necessary to achieve the objective. Is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective? 32. In consider...

3. BORA Harmful Digital Communications Bill [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...host to refrain from hosting or retaining potentially offensive communications, given the risk of liability, and there is also scope for users to agree upon terms of hosting, for example by indemnifying the content host; and 22.3 There is Court of Appeal authority that a statutory immunity from liability does not engage Bill of Rights obligations because it does not constitute performance of a public function, power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 72 Eden Group Ltd v Jackson [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...freezing order [19] The respondents seek its discharge and that is opposed by the applicant. [20] I propose to extend the freezing order until 12 noon on Tuesday 21 June 2016 for two reasons. The first is to enable the applicant to file any appeal against the non-renewal of that order, which will follow at the end of that period. The second reason is to enable the respondents to file and serve undertakings, a draft form of which was handed up in court this morning but which unde...

5. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 59 (11 September 2012) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...publication or non-publication. However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand 6 to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [42] 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 rig...

6. QQ v NP LCRO 121/2012 (15 June 2015) [pdf, 78 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. 4 Review Hearing [16] Mr QQ attended a review hearing in [City] o...

7. HJ v MN LCRO 26/2013 (11 March 2015) [pdf, 149 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. Discussion Standards Committee Process and Investigator’s Enquiry and Re...

8. KR v HS LCRO 227/13 (7 November 2014) [pdf, 107 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. Review Issue [16] In a professional disciplinary sense, Ms KR’s complai...

9. Evans - Waitara West 52C - (2018) 383 Aotea MB 43 (383 AOT 43) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...ability, experience, and knowledge of the individual or body; and (b) shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the appointment of that individual or body would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [10] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the interpretation of s222.5 In that case the Court observed:6 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the...

10. Tiopira - Bella Tiopira [2018] Chief Judge's MB 96 (2018 CJ 96) [pdf, 359 KB]

    ...which records that he was born on 13 June 1954. His mother is recorded as Tehohipera Teakau Tiopira and his father is recorded as Naki Tiopira. 1 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 103 [9] Having considered the Report and the evidence provided in support I am satisfied that an error has been made in the presenta...