Search Results

1. Turner v Itchyfoot Pty Ltd [2021] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...which to separate obviously personal information about someone from that which is not. Rather, a fact-based contextual approach to this question is required. See Taylor v Corrections at [80]–[81], [83]–[85], [100] and [106]–[122]. [29] On appeal, the High Court agreed that the definition of personal information was broad and not limited to that which was sensitive, intimate or private. The Court also agreed that the question of whether information is “about” an identifiabl...

2. Hoban v Attorney-General [2022] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...The good faith obligation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art 26 required no less. All this has been fully explained by the Tribunal in Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd at [115] to [140] and approved by the High Court on appeal in Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd at [16] and [23]. [53] The point made by the Attorney-General is that New Zealand has no treaty obligations which require the enactment of legislation prohibiting the advocacy or incitement of hatred or d...

3. Hastie and Dredge TRI-2023-100-001 Procedural Order 4 [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...application and must go to hearing. [54] The fourth respondent also claims that it is prejudiced by the unreliability of witnesses’ memories as they may have faded over time and can become biased by the dispute process. It cites the Court of Appeal case of Street v Fountaine as support.25 Although there are valid concerns about the reliability of witnesses, both the fourth respondent and the claimants have 25 Street v Fountaine [2018] NZCA 55 at [128]. 13 submitted compr...

4. Hassan v Woodcock - Manukau E2B1 (Rangikohu Marae) (2023) 262 Taitokerau MB 164 (262 TTK 164) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...succeed. [26] New Zealand courts have also adopted this reasoning, emphasising that an assessment of whether or not a serious question to be tried in fact existed could not be brushed over lightly.13 In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction:14 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which the...

5. [2024] NZREADT 01 - CAC 2106 v Pang (8 January 2024) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...penalty orders are to be filed and served by 30 January 2024. Mr Pang’s submissions are to be filed and served by 20 February 2024. [55] 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. PUBLICATION [56] Having regard to the privacy of the vendor and her daughter as well as the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal, it is appropriate to order 15 publication of this d...

6. Gilvray v Rungarunga - Succession to Tamati Rungarunga [2023] Chief Judge's MB 551 (2023 CJ 551) [pdf, 319 KB]

   ...the order or certificate of confirmation or make such other order or issue such certificate of confirmation as, in the opinion of the Chief Judge, is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or...

7. LCRO 208/2021 PK v GH (13 June 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...that she “was happy to withdraw” from any involvement with this review.21 Nature and scope of review [72] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 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 inv...

8. 2023 NZPSPLA 036.pdf [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...unsuccessful he was stood down. [32] No evidence was provided to support this and the PSPLA had no contact from anyone on behalf of Security Guard B after 5 August 2021 attempting to have the decision declining his COA reversed. In addition, no appeal was filed against that decision. Security Guard B should not have been engaged until he obtained a COA and even if he was wrongfully engaged the continuation of his contract should have been conditional upon him obtaining a COA. When...

9. Hastie and Dredge TRI 2023-100-001 Procedural Order 6 [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...break the chain of causation. It is submitted that had the original work not been defective, the repairs would not have been undertaken and additional losses would not have been incurred. The claimants rely on Johnson v Watson, where the Court of Appeal held that it is enough to establish that the original work remained a substantial and material cause of the damage.20 [43] The claimants submit that all parties have been prejudiced by the loss of documentation caused by the eart...

10. 951650-Kainga-Ora-evidence-Phil-Jaggard-Stormwater-and-Flooding.pdf [pdf, 2 MB]

    ...infrastructure advice, support and expert evidence on water, wastewater and stormwater servicing for brownfield and greenfield development Projects for both public and private entities. The following experience is particularly relevant to this appeal: (a) Provided primary stormwater and flooding evidence on behalf of Kāinga Ora in relation to the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit Notices of Requirement (“NoRs”) applied for by Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport (“AT”)....