Search Results

1. 20231124-AG-BIM_Redacted_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...introduced in 2022.1 –––––––––––––––– 1 This obligation arises under section 7A of the Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General must also notify the House where the Human Rights Review Tribunal, or a senior court on appeal from the Tribunal, declares an enactment to be inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination (section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act) under the Human Rights Act 1993. 8 To date this process has been used once, fol...

2. Reti v Smith - Part Lot 7 Deposited Plan 3351 - Petane Marae (2024) 109 Tākitimu MB 1 (109 TKT 1) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...could have sought court directions to authorise the payments. They could have commenced a process to amend the trust order and charter to allow the payments, 7 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17), at [11]. 109 Tākitimu MB 7 although I accept this option may not have been feasible given the urgency at play. Rather than exercise one of the available options, the trustees simply authorised payments to themselves t...

3. 2023-10-12-Affidavit-of-Laila-Alkamil_Part1.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   ...of case management tools available to the Court to best enable meaningful participation by submitters. 29. With the strength of the differing opinions held within the community, it is likely, in my opinion, that the Application would otherwise be appealed to the Environment Court if it was heard by Council in the first instance. Having the Application instead heard by the Environment Court will avoid duplication of cost and time for the Applicant, Council and submitters. ECS-479124-46·2...

4. Smith - Nuhaka 2A4A9Y2 (2023) 122 Tairāwhiti 192 (122 TRW MB 192) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...shows that the applicant has 135.81652 shares in support out of 989.00000, amounting to 13.73% (rounded to the second decimal) of total shares. 2 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) at [64]-[66]. 122 Tairāwhiti MB 202 [35] There are also 5 owners out of 25 owners supporting the application amounting to 20% of owners. [36] There are also five out of 25 owners opposed to the application, holding...

5. LCRO 36/2022 EY obo SG v LW (25 July 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...continues to hold the amount recommended by the Committee to be refunded to Mr SG. Nature and scope of review [24] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:14 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It...

6. OIA-119252.pdf [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...therefore declined. 9. Has there been any attempt by the MOJ to capture the cost-savings of having a CA involved in a case e.g. trials not needing to take case in the first place, avoidance of retrials, shortening of length of trial, avoidance of appeal etc? If so, what are the results? On 5 March 2025, the Ministry contacted you to advise your request was granted, but further time was needed to get this response ready for you. I appreciate your patience while the Ministry worked...

7. Deputy Registrar v Teki-Clark - Tauakira No 2M No 4 (2024) 495 Aotea MB 123 (495 AOT 123) [pdf, 472 KB]

   ...4 Kake - Estate of Aldyth Kake (2020) 209 Taitokerau MB 134 (209 TTK 134). 5 Herewini - Te Tii Mangonui A3 (2019) 192 Taitokerau MB 170 (192 TTK 170). 6 Ratana v Tihi - Ruatoki B Section 23 and others [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 290 (2021 APPEAL 290) at [19]-[21]. 7 Clarke v Rewha - Hauai No 2G Sec 2B (2019) 186 Taitokerau MB 68 (186 TTK 68). 495 Aotea MB 127 presumption was established in the Clarke v Rewha case because the shed was built on a concrete pad. [15] C...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 220 Very Nice Productions Limited v Ormond [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...Company’s financial situation. Impact of order on plaintiff’s ability to bring its challenge? [21] The Company has submitted that if security for costs is ordered, it may prevent it from being able to proceed with its challenge. The Court of Appeal has noted that where an order will have that effect, it “should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to...

9. [2025] NZEmpC 106 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...security for costs stifling Mr Burgess’ challenge. She did so by referring to the conundrum facing Courts discussed by the Supreme Court in Reekie v The Attorney- General.11 That case was primarily concerned with providing security for costs on an appeal but contains comments that might be more generally applied. The Court’s concern in Reekie was about the possibility of a meritorious claim by an impecunious plaintiff being prevented with unsatisfactory consequences for access t...

10. [2025] NZEmpC185 Lanigan v Fonterra Brands (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...default.13 Further, if the party in default is the plaintiff, the proceeding might be adjourned until compliance occurs or, if there are repeated defaults, it may be dismissed.14 [22] In Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd v Postles, the Court of Appeal held that the pleadings define the ambit of the proceeding and the issues to which questions of relevance must relate.15 The Court also held that while relevance cannot be divorced from the pleadings it should not be looked at narrowly...