Search Results

1. COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...17 R v Briggs [2009] NZCA 244 at [85] per Arnold J. 67. To trigger the concept of detention there must be a “substantial intrusion on personal liberty”,18 whether a physical deprivation or a statutory constraint. The Court of Appeal has held that:19 “An arrest or detention is arbitrary if it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures.” 68. For...

2. Haretuku - Succession to Pirihira Te Whatu [2020] Chief Judge's MB 142 (2020 CJ 142 [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...Māori Act 1993, and recognising that Māori land is a taonga tuku iho to be retained by the owners their 4 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 5 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 156 whānau and hapū, I consider that it is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy this mistake. [17] As this second Registrar’s Report has not been circulated to the parties, I am...

3. [2019] NZREADT 52 - Grewal (25 November 2019) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...We order that he is to pay a fine of $15,000 to the Authority, within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [60] 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 G Denley Member _____...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 93 Gestro v Relph [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...must determine the real nature of the relationship by taking all relevant matters into consideration, as just discussed. 4 Three Foot Six Ltd v Bryson [2004] 2 ERNZ 526 (CA) at [31] per McGrath J dissenting, this approach being undisturbed on appeal to the Supreme Court. 5 Franix Construction Ltd v Tozer [2014] NZEmpC 159, [2014] ERNZ 347 at [44]; citing Singh v Eric James and Associates Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 1 at [16]. 6 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 150, [2...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 085 Lee & Rochwalski v Buller District Council [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...Regional Council in 2010.14 The decision granting the resource consent (including any conditions of that consent) will be recognised as valid until it is set aside or amended by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 While the Environment Court hears appeals against decisions granting resource consents, the court does not have an inherent power to review the decision of the Regional Council to grant a water permit. Given the above, I decline to issue the summons sought. Report w...

6. Paul v Doorbar - Pukepapa 3 (2020) 414 Aotea MB 16 (414 AOT 16) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...reservation land are not infrequent. As a result, there are many 14 For examples, see Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Part Reservation Trust [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2018 APPEAL 512); Hamilton-Tuahu 3X (2009) 34 Gisborne MB 230 (34 APGS 230); Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) (2004) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98); Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233) 414 Aot...

7. [2021] NZREADT 43 - Complaints Assessment Committee v Lowndes (10 August 2021) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...[57] The application for an order restricting publication of Ms Lowndes’ name, or identifying details, is declined. [58] 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 _____...

8. Yuile v Smith - Tuahu 6 (2022) 112 Tairawhiti MB 20 (112 TRW 20) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(a). 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(aa). 15 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(b). 16 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87. 17 Whaanga - Anewa Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 45 (2013 APPEAL 45), at [38]. 18 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 329(2)(c). 19 Bidois - Te Puna 154D3B2B (2008) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (12 AP 102), and Sione - Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275). https://www....

9. [2022] NZREADT 26 He & An (22 November 2022) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...working days of this decision. 3. Ordered to pay costs of $1,419.50 to the Authority within 20 working days of this decision. [75] 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. ___________________ C A Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ G J Denley Member ___________________ P N O’Connor Member

10. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Collins [2022] NZLCDT 22 (30 June 2022) [pdf, 170 KB]

    ...been reached in this particular instance. (b) Negligence [67] The definition of negligence was discussed in the leading case of W v Auckland Standards Committee 3, in which Duffy J was upheld in her description of negligence by the Court of Appeal: “We see no error in the approach which Duffy J adopted in the present case of considering whether reasonable members of the public, informed of all relevant circumstances, would view W’s conduct as tending to bring the profession...