Search Results

1. Hooker Family Trust v R & B Plastering Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 41 [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...roof being replaced. R & B Plastering Limited was the plasterer, not the roofer, and, given my findings as regards the parapets, has no liability for the roof replacement. Other expenses and the claim for stress [24] The Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces1 made it clear that the owners of leaky homes are entitled to compensation (where it is proved) whether they are trustees or not. The Court does not differentiate between trustees and non-trustee occupiers. [2...

2. LCRO 161-2016 XS v VS [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Committee may, in its discretion, decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action, on any complaint if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee,— … (f) there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. [31] It is a little puzzling that Mr VS has chosen to pursue a re...

3. Bidois - Estate of Hikairo Paul (2016) 152 Waiariki MB 298 (152 WAR 298) [pdf, 341 KB]

   ...entire Will void and the interests of the deceased can be dealt with by subsequent complying provisions in the Will. Nicholas v Kameta - Estate of Vlhakaahua Vlalker Kameta, Te Fuke 2A2A3B 1 and 2A2A3B2 [2011] Maori Appellate Court lv1B 500 (2011 APPEAL 500). Southon v Southon -- Estate Tame Raihania Sal/than [2008] Chief Judge's lv1B 28 (2008 CJ 28). Ibid at [22]-[23] 152 Waiariki MB 303 [20] Chief Judge Isaac subsequently determined that in the case before him the entire Wi...

4. Dennett v Te Tumu Paeroa - Rotohokahoka D North 2A (2017) 178 Waiariki MB 24 (178 WAR 24) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation – Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate MB 216 (7 APWH 216). These principles were recently endorsed by the Māori Appellate Court in Bratton v Le Lievre [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 351 (2017 APPEAL 351). 178 Waiariki MB 30 (b) Costs normally follow the event; (c) A successful party should be awarded a reasonable contribution to the costs that were actually and reasonably incurred; (d) The Māori Land Court has a ro...

5. BORA Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...action is to restrict that freedom. [2] 6. New Zealand and international jurisprudence supports the proposition that forms of expression that may be regarded as offensive or distasteful are nevertheless protected forms of expression. The Court of Appeal in Living Word Film Distributors v Human Rights Action Group [3] accepted the proposition that a fundamental aspect of the right to freedom of expression is that it extends to protecting all information and opinion, however offensive or...

6. BORA Health (Protection) Amendment Bill [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...this is possible while protecting public health. • Individuals are required to be kept informed about the nature of any power that is exercised and its implications, any steps planned to be taken in respect of the individual, and the right to appeal or to apply for judicial review. • Any measure should not be applied for longer than is necessary to minimise the public health risk posed by the individual. Section 11 - Right to refuse medical treatment 8. The Bill contains new pow...

7. CAC 306 v White [2016] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...that she disclosed, that Ms White must have been aware of, and that she chose not to disclose. Result [34] The charge against Ms White is dismissed. [35] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ____________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson [2016] NZREADT 38 - White ____________________ Ms N Dangen Member _____________...

8. Director of Proceedings v Nelson (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...civil litigation an award of costs can be made in favour of an unsuccessful party, but only in extreme cases. See Body Corporate 97010 v Auckland City Council (2001) 15 PRNZ 372 (CA) at [20] to [21]: [20] In England it has been said by the Court of Appeal that where the successful party raises issues or makes allegations improperly or unreasonably, “the Court may not only deprive him of his costs but may order him to pay the whole or a part of the unsuccessful party’s costs”, from...

9. CL v SC LCRO 218/2015 (6 April 2016) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...consequence, Mr CL could readily have established that by producing evidence of the time he received the email. [36] Mr NH submits that the LCRO has discretion to extend the time for filing of a review. He argues that as there is no right to appeal a determination of the LCRO other than by way of seeking judicial review, a LCRO should adopt a “clean slate” approach to each case, and with a view to resolving issues such as arise in this case, in favour of the person in jeopardy...

10. [2016] NZEmpC 91 Khurana v Singh [pdf, 100 KB]

    ...plaintiff will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if the plaintiff is unsuccessful in the proceedings, then the Judge may, if he or she thinks it just in all the circumstances, order the giving of security for costs. [17] The Court of Appeal in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd when dealing with r 5.4 of the High Court Rules stated: 8 [15] The rule [for security for costs] itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse aw...