Search Results

1. Aramatua Trust v Proctor - Nuhaka 2C2X (2020) 99 Tairawhiti MB 106 (99 TRW 106) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...records of this block are not readily available, however, I am bound to give effect to the orders of the Māori Land Court. In other words, the only orders that bind me, are the previous orders of this Court or the Māori Appellate Court, subject to appeals to the superior courts. Ngā take mō te whakataunga – Reasons for Decision [19] The application was filed on behalf of the trustees. They are the legal owners of the blocks subject to the trust. The respondent is one o...

2. Motu v Rapihana - Pukepoto 8B15B3B Residue (2022) 256 Taitokerau MB 150 (256 TTK 150) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvey Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129. 3 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd v Credit House (Vic) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309 at 311. 256 Taitokerau MB 195 be brushed over lightly.4 In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction:5 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which the p...

3. LCRO 77/2021 GS and VU v CN and SW (23 March 2022) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...March 2022 attended by Mr CN and Ms SW, Mr GS and Mr VU, and Mr PG and Mr BB, counsel for Mr GS and Mr VU. [23] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 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 inv...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 169 Hairland Holdings Ltd v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employmment [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...[56] and [66]. proceedings. Hairland sought a finding that the Authority did not have jurisdiction to investigate the Inspector’s claims. [11] By agreement the challenge was deferred and eventually stayed pending the outcome of appeals in Gill Pizza. The application to strike-out [12] The Chief Executive applied to strike-out Hairland’s challenge on two grounds. The first ground was that Gill Pizza confirmed the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine the s...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 207 Arohanui Hospice Service Trust v New Zealand Nurses Organisation [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...Ltd, above n 7, at [31]; Aviation and Marine Engineers Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 172 at [71]–[72]; New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air NZ Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 168, [2014] ERNZ 709 at [14] and [17] (undisturbed in later appeals). days are not fixed, the reference is back to the day of the week on which the public holidays fall: Where a part-time employee’s days are not fixed, the employee shall be entitled to public holiday provisions if they...

6. BORA-Vet-advice_-SIGNED-with-coda-Firearms-Prohibition-Order-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-Consistency-to-NZBORA-15-February-2024-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 5 MB]

   ...searches cannot be justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Human Rights Act 1993, s 21{f) . Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at (55] and [143] . • 7 39. However, applying the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Ngaronoa v Attorney-Genera/, we do not consider the Bill engages section 19. 24 Specifically, because: 39.1 While the Bill expands the category of people against to whom FPOs may be made gang members or associates, in particular...

7. MOJ0048.7_JUN21_WEB.pdf [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...covers: • charges filed against the defendant or young person • reasons for not laying charges • your role as a witness • when and where the hearings will take place • the outcome of any criminal proceedings, including any proceedings on appeal • a young person’s progress on a plan agreed at a family group conference. You can also ask for this information to be given to someone else who will then explain it to you. RIGHT 3: To make a victim impact statement You have...

8. [2024] NZIACDT 18 – KL v Lawlor (24 May 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...texts from October 2022. [17] The Authority wrote to Mr Lawlor on 11 October 2023 setting out details of the complaint and seeking his explanation. There was no substantive reply from him. 1 The Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissed an appeal on 20 November 2023; CW (2021 Resident Visa) [2023] NZIPT 206763. 4 Complaint referred to Tribunal [18] On 23 November 2023, the Registrar referred the complaint against Mr Lawlor to the Tribunal alleging negligence, or altern...

9. LCRO 113/2024 TD v PW (25 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...of review is, as had been noted in a number of court decisions, “a very particular statutory process”.2 [15] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:3 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 invo...

10. Baker TRI-2023-100-006 Procedural Order 4 [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...apportion liability between the respondent parties. It is not required to make “third party” type liability rulings. [41] The position regarding the longstop and contribution claims is currently before the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue in Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council8, finding that a contribution claim is not caught by the Building Act longstop provisions. The Supreme Court has yet to deliver its judgment on t...