Search Results

1. Annexure 1 - The Law [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...being made does not prevent the persons hearing the submission on a proposal from having regard to the matters stated in s 32.36 [44] The leading decision on challenging a s 32 Report, is Kirkland v Dunedin City Council.37 Here the Court of Appeal was considering challenges made under s 32(3); the Act was subsequently amended in 2003.38 Nevertheless, the Court’s observations remain pertinent; namely a submitter may legitimately seek to bolster their attack on the provisions by...

2. [2023] NZREADT 1 - CAC 1904 v Bright (16 January 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Authority within one month of this decision. 3. Ordered to pay costs of $7,109 to the Authority within one month of this decision. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 9 See also Mr Bright’s “Comments/Responses to Complaint” dated 31 July 2019 (at [18]). 13 PUBLICATION [52] Having regard to the privacy of the complainant and the interests of the public, it...

3. LCRO 76/2021 PJ v RK (19 July 2022) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...attempting to summarise them. I refer to these where appropriate in this decision. Nature and scope of review [32] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 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....

4. [2021] NZEmpC 142 Christieson v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...evidence. The evidence will be tested at the substantive hearing. Does the plaintiff have an arguable case? Is there an arguable case for unjustifiable dismissal? [10] Mr Christieson was dismissed on the grounds of incompatibility. The Court of Appeal has noted that a dismissal on such grounds will only be available in very rare circumstances.6 [11] Ms Service, counsel for the defendant, properly conceded that for the purposes of an interim reinstatement application, it is arg...

5. York - Matakohe North Eastern Portion Lot 54 Section 3B1 Maori Reservation (2021) 235 Taitokerau MB 288 (235 TTK 288) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...still relevant as to factors that the Court should consider when removing a trustee: [16] There are several superior court authorities regarding the principles applicable to the serious step of removal of trustees. They include the Court of Appeal judgments Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick, and the Māori Appellate Court decision of Perenara v Pryor. [17] These authorities support the following general propositions: (a) removal is a serious step and is not undertaken lightly;...

6. LCRO 187/2022 JP Limited v YG (6 June 2024) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...of that type of behaviour were summarised by Sheppard J in Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248, which was adopted by Goddard J in Hedley v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Limited (2002) 16 PRNZ 694 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] 3 NZLR 400. The summary provided by Sheppard J is as follows: 1. The making of allegations of fraud knowing them to be false and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud; 2. Particular m...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 198 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...held to provide protection from disclosure of matters connected with bargaining. A similar view of reg 44(3)(c) was taken in Lloyd v Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (No 2).20 [58] Both decisions are not free from doubt, and the Court of Appeal has cautioned against extending categories of class privilege.21 [59] The Court in Coy considered reg 44(3)(c) and also drew on s 69 of the Evidence Act to reach a conclusion about whether certain medical evidence relating to the...

8. Zhang v Samsung Electronics New Zealand Ltd (Strike Out Application) [2023] NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...those grounds apply have been added to the HRA compels the conclusion that Parliament has been very deliberate in what will and will not amount to unlawful discrimination.14 The Tribunal’s reasoning on this point was described by the High Court on appeal as “unassailable”.15 [38] Part 2 of the HRA does not confer a universal right to be free from discrimination. Rather, it only provides protection against discrimination in certain areas of activity such as in employment,16...

9. OIA-120295.pdf [pdf, 834 KB]

   ...$4,522 $5,200 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or drug Auckland District Court 1 $417 $480 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or drug Christchurch District Court 2 $5,400 $6,210 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or drug Court of Appeal of New Zealand 1 $80 $92 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or drug Gisborne District Court 1 $1,200 $1,380 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or drug Hamilton - Parole 1 $1,500 $1,725 2024 Criminal Assessment - alcohol and/or d...

10. [2025] NZIACDT 24 - INZ v Ma (31 March 2025) [pdf, 131 KB]

    ...in a professional and diligent manner in failing to retain and provide to the Authority a record of written communications, in breach of cl 1 of the Code. 9 MM v Ma [2024] NZIACDT 10 (12 March 2024) at [43]. 10 Upheld by the District Court on appeal; Ma v [deleted] [2025] NZDC 1128. 11 EM v Ma [2024] NZIACDT 25. 10 2. Failed to obtain the client’s instructions before proceeding with the visa application, in breach of cl 2(e). 3. Failed to provide to the client evidence...