Search Results

1. Olsen v Vercoe - Matata Parish Lot 6A (2015) 116 Waiariki MB 63 (116 WAR 63) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...Mr Olsen provided a schedule of numerous attendances and meetings that he and/or Mr Gardiner attended. The hours approximate to 128.5 hours but do not include time expended in relation to the injunction proceedings filed last year, the related appeal proceedings to the Environment Court, or the current removal application proceedings. The trustees say that the total time committed to the project could easily exceed 200 hours each. [16] The trustees advised that no payments have be...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 99 Robinson v Pacific Seals Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...a significant hazard the employer must take all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise it. 14 A significant hazard is defined as including “an actual or potential cause or source of serious harm”. 15 [26] As the Court of Appeal observed in Central Cranes Ltd v Department of Labour: 16 The Act adopts a preventative approach to maintaining and promoting health and safety in the workplace. Its principal object is to provide for the prevention of harm. To a...

3. Parohinog v Yellow Pages Group Ltd (Strike-Out Application No 2) [2015] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...and 105 of the Human Rights Act. Section 105 requires the Tribunal “to act according to the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities”. That section applies, with necessary modifications, to decisions of this Court on appeal against a decision of the Tribunal: s123(5). [46] The Tribunal has an express power to dismiss proceedings, if satisfied that they are frivolous, vexatious or not brought in good faith: s115. As Mr Laurenson points out, the Tribunal del...

4. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...concerned. The scope of this review [45] 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, where the Court held that there was no threshold test to meet before matters could be referred to the LCDT.16 [46] Part of the Court’s reasoning was that the threshold test which previously exis...

5. TH v CY LCRO 32/2014 (14 October 2016) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...and Scope of Review [18] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under 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...

6. SW on behalf of COMPANY 1 v RG, OL and HJ LCRO 130/2014 (3 November 2016) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee without good reason. [13] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:3 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

7. Justice Sector Outlook December 2016 [pdf, 758 KB]

   ...treason, espionage, piracy and corruption offences, as defined in Schedule 1 of the Act. Crown Law case disposals: Measures the number of cases that are handled by Crown Law and Crown solicitors. These include, for example, all Category 4 cases, and appeals. We count disposals to align with Crown Law’s workload assessments. The measure is obtained by combining projections of disposals for each of the different types of case handled by Crown Law. Community Detention: Punitive sentence...

8. [2021] NZACC 35 - Kinney v ACC (15 February 2021) [pdf, 202 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 35 ACR 375/17 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN PAUL KINNEY Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 November 2020 Appearances: Mr P Sara for the appellant Mr H Evans for the respondent Judgment: 15 February 2021 __________...

9. Justice Sector Outlook December 2016 [pdf, 882 KB]

   ...treason, espionage, piracy and corruption offences, as defined in Schedule 1 of the Act. Crown Law case disposals: Measures the number of cases that are handled by Crown Law and Crown solicitors. These include, for example, all Category 4 cases, and appeals. We count disposals to align with Crown Law’s workload assessments. The measure is obtained by combining projections of disposals for each of the different types of case handled by Crown Law. Community Detention: Punitive sentence...

10. Hauiti v Tamati - Puhunga A7D1 (2017) 68 Tairawhiti MB 100 (68 TRW 100) [pdf, 334 KB]

    ...the Act provides: 8 Maxwell v Parata – Maruata 2B2 (1994) 4 Taitokerau Appellate Court MB 18 (4 APWH 18). See also Matchitt v Matchitt – Te Kaha 65 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 662 (2015 APPEAL 662). 68 Tairawhiti MB 106 20 Jurisdiction in actions for recovery of land Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the District Court Act 2016, the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding for th...