Search Results

1. CAC 20004 v Mr G [2014] NZREADT 76 [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...persons involved in proceedings. [31] We considered the principles relevant to applications under s.108 in An Agent v Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 10028) [2011] NZREADT 02. There we held that we had the power to make non-publication orders on appeals from decisions of Complaints Assessment Committees and we set out the principles to consider when determining whether to make such orders. Relevantly, we relied on Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd where Her Honour Elias CJ said at...

2. FT v NSC LCRO 259 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...reason is simply as provided in the preceding paragraph – namely that I did not consider there was any strength in his application. It is difficult to see what further reason need be provided. [13] UQ has subsequently referred me to a Court of Appeal decision (Taylor v The Queen [2010] NZCA 628) where the Court applied earlier authorities that the giving of earlier adverse rulings, even adverse findings of credibility, will only “in the rarest of circumstances” (Muir v Commiss...

3. Phon v Waitakere City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...opposition, as for the purposes of the removal application I should accept their amended pleadings as correct. In Procedural order 7 dated 20 August 2010 I granted the Council and Mr Kaill’s applications for removal. The claimants filed an appeal against that order which was heard before Ellis J on 8 February 2011. By decision dated 15 February 2001 she dismissed the appeal having concluded there was no arguable cause of action against the removed parties. In reaching th...

4. BORA Maori Fisheries Bill [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...issue of discrimination appears to arise for the following reasons: (i) We do not consider that 'urban Maori' form an identifiable ethnic group for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. In King-Ansell v Police [3] the New Zealand Court of Appeal discussed the plain language meaning of 'ethnic origins'. Woodhouse and Richardson JJ considered that the test for ethnic origins should be a mixed subjective/objective test. Members of the group would have to have a subject...

5. LCRO 17/2014 SM v TR and DH [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act):1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for t...

6. LCRO 202/2016 and 6/2017 JI v ZY [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...scope of review [24] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:8 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

7. Ngāti Taimanawaiti Māori Incorporation - Lot 2 DP 29547 (9 Old North Road, Orewa) (2016) 135 Taitokerau MB 20 (135 TTK 20) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...the statement of claim did not comply with r 5.26(b), he had jurisdiction to reject the document even if the Registrar did not. As such Venning J did not decide the issue. [21] In Fuimaono v Housing New Zealand Limited, 5 Ellis J considered an appeal against a decision to refuse leave to bring a cross-appeal out of time. In that case, a notice of appeal was filed on 21 October 1997. The Registrar returned the notice stating that it was out of time. Ellis J found that the notice...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 140 Mawhinney v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...is directly relevant is that in 2015 Mr Mawhinney applied for numerous declarations about SUB-570 and SUB-571 in this proceeding. Many were struck out in Orders A and F of the Environrnent Court's decision [2017] NZEnvC 145 (which has been appealed to the High Court). Mr Mawhinney's 17'h, 18'h and 19'h affidavits in these proceedings. 4 [7] However, there are three outstanding applications in this proceeding - 5, 6 and 50 - directly relevant to SUB-570 a...

9. Diamondaras v Rice - Rangiuru Part No 2A Bock (2016) 148 Waiariki MB 253 (148 WAR 253) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. (7) [Repealed] [19] I am guided by the general principles concerning rehearing applications as s...

10. BORA Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill [pdf, 213 KB]

    ...as if the child were of full age.3 We have also taken into account the common law principle, as set out in 2 In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260 Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754 and Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Oak...