Search Results

1. SM v ML LCRO 79 / 2011 (22 November 2012) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...to be a reference to section 138(1)(f) of the Act which provides that a Standards Committee may determine to take no further action if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee “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] However, SM’s complaint cannot be determined on these g...

2. BU v YA LCRO 153 / 2010 (21 April 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...the Committee does not understand the law. [19] He considers that in evaluating the complaint concerning the lodgement of the Notice of Claim, the Committee has applied the wrong test. He refers to a decision of Simperinghan v Martin (Court of Appeal) Wellington, CA 5/95, 2 June 1995. He notes that the requirement established by this case is that before lodging a caveat, a solicitor must have an “honest belief” that there is a registrable interest. [20] With regard to the ma...

3. Chaiyapoom v Hu [2014] NZIACDT 78 (09 September 2014) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...Nature of Legal Liability [12] The Registrar requested that the Tribunal delay determining the complaint due to issues raised by the District Court’s decision in Geldenhuys v Yap DC Christchurch, CIV 2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014. A successful appeal against that decision Immigration Advisers Authority v Yap [2014] NZHC 1215 followed. The Tribunal gave the parties the opportunity to make submissions following the High Court’s decision. Only the Registrar did so. [13] The Registra...

4. Smith v Smith - Waipaoa 5A2 and other lands (2017) 64 Tairawhiti MB 270 (64 TRW 270) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...file and prosecute applications in the Court for the appointment of new trustees, the variation of the trust order and for the determination per s 18(1)(a) of the Act for ownership of buildings; (c) at the appropriate time, to then discontinue the appeal against the decision of this Court dated 18 October 2016; [8] The parties agree that they will seek the Court’s approval for the appointment of an independent expert to review the administration of the estate in accordance with...

5. Mark McNeilly (dated 21 April 2017) [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY ENV-2016-CHC-47 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Section 120 Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN BLUESKIN ENERGY LIMITED Appellant AND DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL Respondent BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF MARK ANDREW McNEILLY _____________________________________________________________ GALLAWAY COOK ALLAN LAWYERS DUNEDIN Solicitor on record: B Irving Solic...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 34 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...Matsuoka has set out substantial and arguable grounds for his personal grievance claim. [22] In exercising the discretion, there is also a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the overall exercise. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:7 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for...

7. BORA Privacy Bill [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...factors before making the order.11 18. The prohibition order is therefore available only in limited circumstances and is restricted by tight guidelines. Further, there is provision to apply for a variation or discharge of the order, and a right of appeal to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. 7 Proposed ss 21 and 31. 8 Proposed s 36. 9 Section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act and Drew v Attorney-General [2002] 1NZLR 58 (CA) at [68]. 10...

8. Judge v Care Park New Zealand Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...seek to re-litigate it. Wintec also submits that even were there duress, having accepted the benefits of the agreement and having taken no timely steps to avoid it, Mr Judge has thereby affirmed it. Wintec relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pharmacy Care Systems Ltd v The Attorney-General (2004) 2 NZCCLR 187 (CA) where the elements of duress were summarised as follows: [98] In summary, the elements of duress in New Zealand law today are these: First, there must be a threa...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 97 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.com Ltd [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...controversy about this. [24] In this case, the real issue is whether, and if so how, the Court might exercise its discretion. This requires an assessment of the respective interests of both parties, which must be balanced as summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd in this well known dicta:11 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contempl...

10. The Maori Trustee v Brightwell - Kaipakopako 2C2 (2016) 354 Aotea MB 226 (354 AOT 226) [pdf, 287 KB]

    ...(78 AOT 31) 3 87 Aotea MB 58-59 (87 AOT 58-59) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM292141#DLM292141 354 Aotea MB 228 [8] In the Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Māori Land Court the Court of Appeal discussed in the Court’s extensive powers on a review of a trust: 4 [19] We entirely agree with McGechan J that a review of the trust cannot sensibly be conducted unless the Court pays some regard to its performance — how well...