Search Results

1. Waimana 1C1A2B2 Trust v Tuna – Waimana No 1C No1A No2B No2 (2013) 76 Waiariki MB 19 (76 WAR 19) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...experience and knowledge of the individual before appointing them a trustee of a trust constituted under Part 12. The Court must also be satisfied that the appointment of that individual is broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [35] The Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana8 recently considered the appointment of trustees pursuant to s 222, stating: [51] The touchstone is section 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experienc...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 188 Hook v Stream Group (NZ) Pty Ltd [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...Commission. 6 [2010] FWA 7358 at [52]. 7 [2012] FWAFB 7097. offensive so as to validate dismissal and that the employer had no social media policy in place. [34] In upholding the decision of the Commissioner (on the limited grounds of appeal available under the Fair Work Act), the full bench made the following apposite comments: 8 The posting of derogatory, offensive and discriminatory statements or comments about managers or other employees on Facebook might...

3. ENVC Matiatia party corresp DMI amended applic out scope 20150130 [pdf, 680 KB]

   ...made: (a) The scope of permissible amendments to an application will depend upon the facts of a particular case, including such environmental impacts as may be rationally perceived by a consent authority;4 (b) Significant changes to a proposal on appeal, including changes which engage different parts of the relevant district plan, are likely to be beyond jurisdiction and involve a fundamentally different proposal;5 (c) Whether the activity for which resource consent is sought, a...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 85 Agus Riyanto & 43 others v Dong Nam Company Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...efficient means of dealing with the preliminary issue of relevance. [15] Regulation 38 defines the term “relevance” as follows: 4 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand [2005] ERNZ 905 (EmpC); leave to appeal against that decision was refused in Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd CA 28/06, 23 June 2006. 5 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand (EmpC), above n 4 at [60]. (1) For the purposes of regulation 37 and regulations 40 to 52, a docume...

5. FT v NSC LCRO 261 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...reason is simply as provided in the preceding paragraph – namely that I did not consider there was any strength in his application. It is difficult to see what further reason need be provided. [18] UQ has subsequently referred me to a Court of Appeal decision (Taylor v The Queen [2010] NZCA 628) where the Court applied earlier authorities that the giving of earlier adverse rulings, even adverse findings of credibility, will only “in the rarest of circumstances” (Muir v Commiss...

6. Morpeth v Ramsey LCRO 110 / 2009 (12 November 2009) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...In a different context see Davis v Witten-Hannah (3/6/94, Cartwright J, HC Auckland CPI 1389/90) where a lawyer was found to have breached fiduciary duties to a woman whom he both acted for professionally and had a relationship with (reported on appeal Witten-Hannah v Davis [1995] 2 NZLR 141; (1996) ANZ ConvR 65). [22] I also observe that Mr Morpeth accepted that Immigration New Zealand were interested in speaking to him because he was Mr Ramsey’s former lawyer and he had dealt...

7. Holden —Nga Taonga Tuturu (2010) 245 Aotea MB 230 (245 AOT 230) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Maori Land Court has jurisdiction under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section. (4) To avoid doubt, section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and any other relevant provision in that Act, applies to any claim for ownership or any appeal lodged under this Act. Discussion [19] The evidence is uncontested that the five artefacts are tāonga tūturu and accordingly, a determination is made pursuant to s 12(1)(a) of the Protected Objects Act 1975. Pumice...

8. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust [2014] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...argument at the second hearing. [26.10] The need to recall some witnesses at the second hearing. [26.11] The duplication of time involved in the Court and counsel “coming up to speed” again for the second hearing. [26.12] The prospect of multiple appeals. [26.13] The need for a second round of discovery or other interlocutories and amended pleadings following the first trial. 9 [26.14] Rostering difficulties in ensuring that the same Judge is available for the second hear...

9. Herewini - Torere Pa 16 [2016] Chief Judges MB 34 (2016 CJ 34) [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...complained of. [21] In Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) I summarised certain principles relating to s 45 applications as follows: 1 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 47  When considering section 45 applications, the Chief Judge needs to review the evidence given at the original hearing and weigh it against...

10. BD v EG LCRO 374/2013 & 376/2013 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 67 KB]

    ...own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence where she considers appropriate. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion 2 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [41]. 7 as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investiga...