Search Results

1. IHC NZ v Ministry of Education (Non-Party Access) [2013] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...was not then aware of the later decisions of Asher J in Commerce Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd and of Heath J in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society (No. 7) respectively. It is noted, however, that Commerce Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. It is understood (at the time of writing) that no date has yet been set for the hearing of that appeal. 7 [23] Until the proper interpretation of r 3.16 has been determined by the Court of Appeal we in...

2. McAneney v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 63 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...through Ms Macky that Mr Kells was at all material times the developer of the home as he was responsible for the design and building of the home as part of the three townhouse development at 21 Inkerman Street, Onehunga. [20] The Court of Appeal decision in Mt Albert Borough Council v Johnson1 is authority for the proposition that a developer owes a non- delegable duty to an intended owner of a home to properly supervise the construction of the home. Cooke J, and with whom Some...

3. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2010) 10 Taitokerau MB 94 (10 TTK 94) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...several hearings and two site inspections, Judge Spencer dismissed the application for partition on 16 April 1996 (81 Wh 15) as it did not meet the requirements of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (“1993 Act”). [12] Judge Spencer’s decision was appealed successfully. On 13 August 1996 (5 APWH 1) the Maori Appellate Court ruled that the lower Court had erred in determining the application pursuant to the 1993 Act. The application was referred back to the lower Court for re-heari...

4. AQ v KX & Anor LCRO 274/2013 (17 May 2016) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Nature and Scope of Review

5. DG v YT Ltd [2014] NZDT 566 (19 May 2014) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...have gone out at lunchtime at all had she elected to travel with a supervisor, as there was none to go with her in that context. In that sense, had she had a supervisor with her, she would not have suffered the loss at all. However, the Court of Appeal has determined that this simplistic “but/for” test cannot be used to establish contribution, as it would deny the application of s11 in too many cases (NZ Insurance Co Ltd v Harris [1990] 1 NZLR 10 (CA)). b. YT points out that...

6. PA v Standards Committee LCRO 267/2014 (30 June 2015) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...review of a decision to prosecute [35] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society.1 The Court accepted that “there is now oversight of the referral decision by the independent LCRO”.2 1 Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 2...

7. Burroughs - Te Reti A23 (2008) 92 Tauranga MB 193 (92 T 193) [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...any application for a status change. [9] The superior courts have also provided guidance on the issue of status change and alienation generally. In addition to Brown v Maori Appellate Court there is of course the important judgment of the Court of Appeal Valuer-General v Proprietors Mangatu Incorporation [1997] 3 NZLR 641 . At page 649 of the decision, Richardson P makes it plain that the Act provides for alienation but in limited circumstances: "The 1993 Act imposes very signific...

8. Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation (Recusal Application) [2017] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...November 2003. [3] By letter dated 31 October 2014 he was given 90 days formal notice that the tenancy would end on 11 February 2015. On application by HNZC, the Tenancy Tribunal granted HNZC a possession order on 24 April 2015. Mr Mihaka has appealed against the grant of that order to the District Court. That appeal has been stayed pending determination of the present proceedings before the Tribunal. [4] By statement of claim filed on 30 November 2015 Mr Mihaka alleges he has bee...

9. LCRO 264/2016 YQ v VG [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...working environment at the school”.1 [4] Ms YQ raised a personal grievance challenging her suspension and dismissal. Mediation was unsuccessful and Ms YQ was not satisfied with the decision reached by the Employment Relations Authority. Her appeal to the Employment Court concluded that the she had established her disadvantage grievance, because the employer’s decision to suspend her was not a conclusion a fair and reasonable employer could have reached in all the circumstanc...

10. [2017] EmpC 154 Sawyer v Victoria University [pdf, 330 KB]

    ...Dr Sawyer’s application for leave to extend time calls into question the authority Mr Lloyd had to consent to a compliance order. In these circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor claims that privilege has been waived. Legal test [18] The Court of Appeal considered waiver of privilege in Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand Inc v Commerce Commission.7 7 Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand Inc v Commerce Commission [2003] 2 NZLR...