Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 64 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...(h) any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate. 8 Rule 11(8). 9 Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2]; Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2017] NZHC 3049; and Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2017] NZHC 3026 upheld on appeal in Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30. 10 See the discussion in Schenker AG v Commerce Commission [2013] NZCA 114, (2013) 22 PRNZ 286; referred to in Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZA...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...as to terms of engagement are not applicable to organisations other than law firms.5 [8] This disciplinary action was brought after Mr Brill (an employed or ‘in house’ lawyer) acted for a number of parties in High Court litigation and in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Those persons were entitled to a lawyer who would provide them with an engagement letter; who would give the required disclosure regarding professional indemnity insurance; and who would adhere to the communicat...

3. McQueen v Boon - Waiwhakaata 3E6 Section 4B2 (2023) 261 Waikato Manapoto MB 177 (261 WMN 177) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...role in facilitating relationships within whānau, 5 Boon v McQueen – Waiwhakaata 3E6 Section 4B2 (2021) 214 Waikato Maniapoto MB 1-14 (214 WMN 1-14). 6 Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B Block (2011) Māori Appellate Court MB 64 (2011 APPEAL 64); Riddiford v Te Whaiti (2001) 13 Tākitimu Appellate MB 184 (13 ACTK 184); Manuirirangi v Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (2002) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 64 (15 WGAP 64); De Loree v Mokomoko and Ors – Hiwarau C (2008) 1...

4. Māori Trustee – Mourea Papakāinga 3D (1995) 240 Rotorua MB 212 (240 ROT 212) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...(i C factua!Backgroynd 240 AotoNI Ml 213 Friday, 28 May 1995 At an times material to this particular case, the land has been vested in MT under 438/53, (now 215, 220/93). In early 1989 it was clear, foRowfng a decision of the Court of Appeal, that the then mortgagees could and would exercise a power of sale over the property to the effect that a substantial and valuable block of Maori frHhold land would be lost to its beneficial owners. MT attempted to rescue the situation b...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hooker [2020] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act).1 [2] That finding was upheld by the High Court in the decision of Jagose J who made his own findings of fact having conducted an independent analysis as to whether misconduct was proved.2 [3] Mr Hooker’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Jagose J was dismissed. The Court observed that the finding of misconduct was open on the facts as found. It was satisfied that “neither the Tribunal nor the High Court erred in law in...

6. ENV-2016-AKL-000xxx Man O'War Farm Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...Environment) and 64 (Subdivision - Rural) MAN O'WAR FARM LIMITED Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISIONS ON PROPOSED PLAN TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND 16 September 2016 1. The Appellant appeals against decisions made by Auckland Council ("the Respondent") on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan ("Unitary Plan") whereby provisions were both included and excluded regarding a matter addressed in Appell...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 161 Eden Epsom Residential Society Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.2 MB]

   ...modifications identified in the decision, met the applicable statutory requirements to be approved. One member concluded that change was not compatible, even with modifications, given the site context and the AUP framework. [2] The decision was appealed to the Environment Court and proceeded to hearing in April 2022 before a differently constituted division of the Environment Court. That Court concluded that on an analysis of the key findings focus/analysis of key issues, inclu...

8. NZLS Predictions in an Uncertain World [pdf, 957 KB]

   ...Minister’s Chief Advisor) p 5. (www.pmsca.org.nz) 8 Section 5(2)(c) RMA. 9 Section 31(1). 10 There is a difference in the wording of the functions about natural hazards of territorial authorities and regional councils. However the Court of Appeal said early on that the difference is immaterial: Canterbury Regional Council v Banks Peninsula District Council [1995] 3 NZLR 189 at 195. Judge Jackson  Predictions in an Uncertain World – assessing effects under the Resource M...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 106 NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...varied orally but he submitted that acceptance of new or varied employment terms must be clear and unequivocal. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in I H Wedding & Sons Ltd v Henry, 10 and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal in I H Wedding & Sons Ltd v Henry. 11 That case, decided under the Employment Contracts Act 1991, involved a claim for recovery of wages. The employee had been asked to sign a new contract but had declined. The employer s...

10. [2009] NZEmpC CC 9/09 Jinkinson v Oceania Gold (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

    ...a contract of service. [32] The language used in that statement obviously reflects a past era. It has, however, been adopted as the basis for more recent decisions. In Nethermere (St Notts) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612, the English Court of Appeal conducted an extensive review of authorities. After referring to the passage from the judgment of MacKenna J set out above, Stephenson LJ described this as the “irreducible minimum of obligation on each side to create a contract of s...