Search Results

1. Edwardes v Architectural Edge Limited [2017] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...scale set out by the Courts. [42] In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I consider that a contribution towards the actual costs should be awarded, but I do not consider that there are grounds for ordering indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation 11 recognised the categories in respect of which the discretion may be exercised is not closed but noted the following circumstances in which indemnity costs have been ordered:  The ma...

2. Wall v Karaitiana - Tauhara Middle 15 Trust (2007) 85 Taupo MB 225 (85 TPO 225) [pdf, 370 KB]

   ...illusion that they will be held to account should it ultimately transpire that the proposal should not have proceeded. They need to consult their advisers as to the nature and extent of their potential liability in this context. [21] The Court of Appeal confirmed the broad powers of the Maori Land Court in respect of trusts in the important judgment The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington). In that decision it was note...

3. Bell v McDonnell - Mataimoana (2017) 374 Aotea MB 298 (374 AOT 298) [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...remove this previous qualification to "tikanga" is consistent with the evolution of te reo Māori to meet modern circumstances and the acknowledgement of changes in social environment in, for example, the broadcasting cases in the Court of Appeal and Waitangi Tribunal. [27] The Court in that case found that:9 Returning then to s,132 (1) & (2)/93, the Court is required "to determine the relative interests of the owners of the land" according to tikanga Māori....

4. Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Colin Boyer [2017] NZREADT 43 [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...profession. Mr Boyer is to pay a fine in the sum of $1,500. [16] Mr Boyer is also censured. A suspension recognises the severity of the conduct but still enable an agent to be rehabilitated. [17] The Tribunal draws to the parties’ attention the appeal provisions of s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. ………………………………………………… Ms K Davenport QC Chair ………………………………………………… Ms N Da...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 23 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 437 KB]

   ...In this case a further consideration is the Court’s ability to take into account the content of affidavits filed by Air NZ in support of its application to strike out parts of the statement of claim. In Attorney-General v McVeagh the Court of Appeal held that a court is entitled to receive affidavit evidence on a strike out application and may 3 Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 6(2)(a)(ii); High Court Rules 2016, r 15.1. 4 Se...

6. CEIT Homeowners Guide [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...the Tribunal, but they must take part in the process. • Hearings are broken down into separate events held on different days. • The Tribunal can compel people to provide evidence. • Tribunal decisions are binding and enforceable but may be appealed to the High Court by either party. • The Tribunal will make binding and enforceable decisions based on existing and relevant insurance contract terms. • The Tribunal is inquisitorial and can investigate the facts of a case. It w...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 66 Morgan v Tranzit Coachlines Wairarapa Ltd [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...employment in light of the “serious problems in this field resulting from the economic difficulties and technological changes experienced in recent years in many countries.” New Zealand has not ratified the Convention but, as the Court of Appeal has recognised, s 66 gives effect to it.7 [11] Section 66 provides an exception to the normal rules of termination, but explicitly not if the point of the fixed-term nature of the employment agreement is to get around those normal ru...

8. Green v New Zealand Police (Jurisdiction) [2019] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...(Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 13. Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, there is no attempt here to “leapfrog” 6 the OPC by trying to get around the statutory scheme in which a claim is first investigated by the Commission before an appeal is heard by the Tribunal. [30] The plaintiff also argues that under PA, s 83 the Tribunal has jurisdiction if the OPC has concluded that the complaint does not have substance. Her position is that it must be assumed that the OPC...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 228 Auckland Council v Cable Bay Wines Limited [pdf, 430 KB]

   ...lawn. [5] The unconsented facilities and activities were the subject of a retrospective resource consent application by the Appellants in April 2017. Examination of the Assessment of Environmental Effects ('AEE') showed us in the s 120 appeal hearing that consent was sought for the following activities: (a) The establishment of the additional enclosed restaurant space and pizza kitchen, collectively referred to as The Veranda. (b) Use of the lawn for restaurant and outdo...

10. [2021] - NZREADT 09 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1905 v Papuni (24 February 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

    ...Papuni is censured, and order that his licence be suspended for a period of 18 months from the date of this decision. [47] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson _________________ Mr N O’Connor Member ______________...