Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 171 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...which a party can seek the Authority/Court’s intervention to remedy perceived deficiencies. These routes have been carefully constructed and do not provide options that can be selected from at will. Rather the ability to pursue a challenge, appeal, judicial review and a re- hearing are largely engaged at different times and in differing circumstances. It is, for example, unusual for the Authority to grant an application to reopen in circumstances where a challenge under s 179 co...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2019] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 132 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZLCDT 28 LCDT 004/19 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 Applicant AND BOON GUNN HONG Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall (retired) MEMBERS Mr S Hunter Mr D Scott Ms P Walker Mr I Williams DATE OF HEARING 30 September 2019 HELD AT Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre, Auckland DATE OF DECISION 11 October 2019 C

3. Memorandum of counsel for Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency 30 April 2020 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...supporting the Te Āpiti Trustees since summer 2018, including involving them in Project design workshops. (c) Five such submitters – DOC, Forest & Bird, QEII, Meridian, and Tararua District Council – were involved in subsequent designation appeals to this Court. Counsel for the Transport Agency have kept counsel for those submitters advised of the proposed timetable for this direct referral process. (d) All submitters wishing to be heard have long had the ability to take...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 140 ITE v ALA [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...principle was narrowly stated, on the basis that a man cannot be made “the confidant of a crime or a fraud” … it is now clear that the principle extends to matters of which disclosure is required in the public interest … [63] The Court of Appeal has put it in this way:9 What has been called ever since Gartside v Outram (1857) … the defence of iniquity, is an instance, and probably the prime instance, of the principle that the law will not protect confidential informat...

5. Maritime Powers Bill [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...to deterrence. 29. Clause 43(2) provides that usual due process related to forfeited goods, as set out in the Customs and Excise Act 2018, applies to ships seized under the Bill. This provides the owners of seized ships with the usual options for appeal in cases where owners believe a ship has been wrongfully seized. 30. The approach taken to seizure in the Bill is not unusual, and such legislation is commonly, and necessarily, far-reaching in other comparable jurisdictions.11 It is rea...

6. Data and Statistics Bill [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...requiring the Crown to prove the opposite; and, c. the penalty for the offence is proportionate to the importance of the Bill’s objective. Infringement offences 35. Although infringement offences do not result in a conviction11, the Court of Appeal in Henderson v Director, Land Transport New Zealand held that the rights in ss 24 and 25 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to minor offences dealt with under the infringement notice regime.12 36. Although we recognise this is not strictl...

7. Hinaki - Whangara A5 (2023) 116 Tairāwhti MB 143 (116 TRW 143) [pdf, 421 KB]

   ...demonstrate that the partition is essential rather than simply desirable or 6 Neal - Taiharuru 4C3C (2016) 132 Taitokerau MB 97 (132 TTK 97) at [30]. 7 MacDonald v MacDonald - Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Maori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) at [62]. 8 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 288(4)(a). 116 Tairāwhiti MB 150 expedient.9 In this respect I agree with Mr Revington, that this application relates to a small area of land surrounded by farmland and t...

8. Ferris v Brown - Nuhiti Q Inc (2023) 117 Tairawhiti MB 216 (117 TRW 216) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...proceedings. 10 Hettig v ANZ Bank of New Zealand Ltd – Lot 1 Deposited Plan 158328 (2014) 93 Taitokerau MB 238 (93 TTK 238), also referenced in Nicholas v The Official Assignee – Lot 6 PD 34349 [2021] Māori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228). 11 Hettig v ANZ Bank of New Zealand Ltd – Lot 1 Deposited Plan 158328 (2014) 93 Taitokerau MB 238 (93 TTK 238), at [45]. 117 Tairawhiti MB 223 [25] That means that an interim injunction under s 19(1)(b) prohibiting th...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...remove a matter, the party may apply for the special leave of the Court to have the matter removed.19 [20] Removal under s 178 is contemplated in relatively limited circumstances. Some confusion has been caused by a statement from the Court of Appeal reflecting this expectation but then referring to the “particular caution expected in cases that have not been fully investigated by the Authority”.20 Removal under s 178 will only occur in cases that have not been fully investi...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 122 Reunited Employees Assoc Inc v Nelmac Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

    ...does not succeed.23 [28] The discretion is a broad one. Regard must be had to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties must be carefully weighed up. That balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd in the following way:24 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an or...