Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC CC 8/09 Safe Air Ltd v Walker [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...Safe Air’s email policies until he became aware on 9 September 2008 that he was under investigation and acquainted himself with them. [35] In Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767, the Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that ignorance of significant employment obligations meant that breach of those obligations could not be regarded as serious misconduct. It found that the proper approach is to consider whether, in all the ci...

2. CAC 10036 v Hume [2011] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...Hume 10 days after receipt of the CAC’s submissions. Any comments by the CAC strictly in reply may be filed 2 days after receipt of Mr Hume’s response. [33] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 7th day of December 2011 ______________________________ Ms K Davenport Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G De...

3. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – summary record 12th-14th reports (continued) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...information on the international legal status of the Cook Islands and to indicate whether New Zealand had arrested any individuals involved, directly or otherwise, in the attacks of 11 September 2001. 30. Mr. THIAM asked whether there were any remedies of appeal against decisions taken by the Attorney-General. He asked whether a victim of racist acts could apply to the Race Relations Conciliator if the Attorney-General deemed his or her complaint inadmissible. 31. Mr. PILLAI welcomed t...

4. Loach v Bidois - Matarikoriko No 7B2A (2015) 336 Aotea MB 182 (336 AOT 182) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...for confirmation. Until the process is completed and the person who is to 12 Muraahi v Phillips - Rangitoto Tuhua 551B and 55B1A2 (Manu Ariki Marae) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 528 (2013 APPEAL 528) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0374/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_maori+land+court+rules_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM4073063 336 Aotea MB 192 be offered the right of first...

5. CAC 20007 v Marshall [2013] NZREADT 101 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...identified by the auditor as very likely not genuine. This gives Mr Marshall the benefit of the doubt regarding the remaining $6,708.09 of suspected expenses. [58] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________...

6. Joint Protocol Ministry of Justice and Department of Child, Youth and Family [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Court that have been determined and where a genuine or proper interest has been established. (ii) Part 3 subpart 2 of the High Court Rules generally governs access to information concerning family related proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal that have been determined and where a genuine or proper interest has been established. (iii) Rule 8 of the Family Proceedings Rules governs access to information concerning proceedings under the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and Care of...

7. Ministerial briefing: Implementation of the Investment Approach to Justice [pdf, 909 KB]

   ...fixed in legislation in the form of standard benefit payments. To understand the fiscal costs of crime requires understanding the way in which different crimes flow through to the activities in the Justice sector such as investigation, prosecution, appeal, and sentence management, and the costs of these activities. 50. Although this exercise may sound straightforward, it is fairly complex in practice. There are many decision points through the Justice pipeline, and the decisions tak...

8. GU v TI LCRO 258 / 2010 (19 December 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...criticise his or her conduct. It is the means by which the Committee can most strongly express its condemnation of what a practitioner has done, backed up, if it sees fit, with a fine and remedial orders. [86] I am aware that this decision is under appeal, but the fact that section 156(1)(i) of the Act contains the two different word does indicate that it was not intended that these words should be considered to be synonymous. I have applied the comments of the Court in that decis...

9. Redruth v Dereham LCRO 154 / 2010 (10 November 2010) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...the legal liability against all three lawyers. In respect of a claim against F, the Practitioner opined that a claim lay in tort, having identified relevant principles in the case of Connell v Odlun [1993] 2NZLR 257, a case where the Court of Appeal had concluded that a lawyer could owe a duty of care to a person not his client. [6] In later April the Applicant sought a further opinion, this time from Mr L of ME. This opinion supported the grounds for a claim against F in tort, whic...

10. Z v D LCRO 4 / 2008 (23 April 2009) [pdf, 44 KB]

    ...(such as an application for costs revision) need to have been taken before a right can be said to exist or be accrued. “Accrued right” is the phraseology used in s 20(e) of the former Acts Interpretation Act 1924. In this regard the Court of Appeal has stated that there has been no substantive change in meaning as between those two Acts: Claydon v A-G [2004] NZAR 16 (CA) per McGrath J at para 85. [21] It is my view that the applicants who had received a bill of costs but as at...