Search Results

1. Sneddon - Estate of Thomas Henry Dick [2018] Chief Judge's MB 858 (2018 CJ 858) [pdf, 451 KB]

   ...1985?: and if so (c) Is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission? 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 3 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 868 Did the deceased Thomas Henry Dick die with issue? [22] I consider that on the balance of probabilities that the applicant has established that the deceased, Thomas Henry Dick, was the father...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 62 Craighead Diocesan School Board of Proprietors v Thompson [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...There is nothing to suggest in principle this approach should not apply in circumstances where an employee is also clearly paid by the day (a daily rate). (footnotes omitted) [18] That paragraph was followed by a comment arising from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Idea Services Ltd v Dickson, about a rigid demarcation not being intended within cl 4 of the relevant minimum wage orders, and this passage:19 As I am not convinced on the material before the Authority that [Mrs]...

3. Bamber - Tahorakuri A No.1 Sec 33A2 (2021) 259 Wairiki MB 274 (259 WAR 274) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...and 238 requiring trustees to repay the trust for expenses where there was no authorisation.12 However, the Court may also grant relief and approve the payments retrospectively. [41] In Ngāi Tāi Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Karaka, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to authorise prospectively or retrospectively remuneration or extra remuneration for a trustee.13 Under s 237 of the Act, the Māori Land Court has all the same powers and authoritie...

4. 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...

5. [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...

6. 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....

7. [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...

8. 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;...

9. 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...

10. [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...