Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 164 Bernie v Auckland Council [pdf, 6.5 MB]

   ...order under 2 314(1)(f) may be lodged­ (a) (not relevant), (b) by any other person, not later than three months after the date on which the policy statement or plan becomes operative. [16] These provisions, 0.12.6 Standards, were not subject to appeal, and were operative by 15 November 2016, some 12 months before this application was filed. As such, no action for failure to comply with the First Schedule can be brought three months thereafter. Thus, this application under s 314(1)(f...

2. LCRO 216/2020 YH v DP (29 July 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...at least September 2017, being two years before Ms YH lodged her complaint. 3 See the table prepared by the Committee at [13]. 4 Standards Committee decision at [10], in which the Committee referred to the well-known judgment of the Court of Appeal in: Cortez Investments Ltd v Olphert and Collins [1984] 2 NZLR 434 (CA) at 441. 6 [29] Review Officers have routinely held, as have Standards Committees, that “special circumstances” exist to go beyond the two-year reach, when a...

3. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...loss or damage for which compensation is payable under any Act of Parliament other than the Earthquake Commission Act 1993. [47] At the time of the damage the limit in s 18 EC Act was $100,000 plus GST. [48] In Doig v Tower Insurance the Court of Appeal commented on a clause which was for all intents and purposes the same as in the current case: It was what is commonly called “top-up cover”, over and above the EQC statutory obligation. Tower’s obligation to pay is triggered b...

4. Nelson Standards Committee v Downing and Reith [2022] NZLCDT 21 (27 June 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...on the appropriate sum. The Standards Committee seeks $10,000, the practitioners agree to a sum of $3,000. Discussion [25] Determining the appropriate award of compensation is an art rather than scientific exercise, as stated by the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Police v Hawkins9: …claims for what amounts to damage to dignitary interests are complex and very important. Remedies scholars (and increasingly courts) rightly see this as a particularly important and developing...

5. Wynyard v Waata - Manawakore C1 and D (2022) 247 Taitokerau MB 4 (247 TTK 4) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...functions of a trustee; or (b) the removal is desirable for the proper execution of the trust, and 1 or more of the following grounds for removal are met: 3 Taurua v Harawira – Te Tii Waitangi A [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 328 (2017 APPEAL 328) at [13]. 247 Taitokerau MB 10 (i) the trustee repeatedly refuses or fails to act as trustee: (ii) the trustee becomes an undischarged bankrupt: (iii) the trustee is a corporate trustee that is subject to an insolve...

6. AMLCFT Statutory Review Summary Document [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...2009 (the Act) helps to keep New Zealand safe from money laundering and terrorism financing. By making it harder for criminals to launder money or finance terrorism, we also make profit-motivated crime (like selling drugs or defrauding people) less appealing. A review of the Act began on 1 July 2021. This document provides a summary of the key issues that have been identified so far as part of this review. It is based on, and designed to be read alongside, the Consultation Document, whic...

7. National Standards Committee 2 v Mr Y [2022] NZLCDT 8 (24 February 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...produced at any hearing: 13 (c) an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. (2) Unless it is reversed or modified in respect of its currency by the High Court on appeal under section 253, an order made under subsection (1) continues in force until such time as may be specified in the order, or, if no time is specified, until the Disciplinary Tribunal, in its discretion, revokes it on the application...

8. LCRO 176/2022 SP v AQ (15 August 2023) [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...Ms AQ responded briefly to Ms SP’s reasons in support of her application. Nature and scope of review [51] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:21 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. It involv...

9. Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency 2023 NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19; and [21.2] Is not a justified limit under NZBORA, s 5. [22] The test for what amounts to a limit on the right to be free from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19 is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson.8 That test requires Mr Emet to prove the following in this case: [22.1] Firstly, that NZTA’s actions amount to differential treatment between him and those in an analogous or comparable situation on...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 181 Ford v Henry Brown and Co Ltd [pdf, 233 KB]

    ...“require” a reduction in the remedies that would otherwise have been awarded. [54] The primary considerations when determining whether a particular action should result in a reduction for contribution are causation and proportionality. The Court of Appeal has explained s 124 as operating like a contributory negligence provision and that “… if the employee, by his or her own behaviour, is partly the cause of the employer’s hasty or ill-judged action (here, in dismissing th...