Search Results

1. Nairn v Peebles LCRO 109 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...letter to the 7 Applicant for response, obtained requested information from the Applicant which he then passed on to the purchaser‟s solicitors. There is no mention about information about the acquisition of the title. [24] I have carefully considered all of the above information. It seems to me that since the Applicant asserts that the 23 June letter “highlighted the issue” of the defective title – a matter that he (but not the Practitioner) had actual knowle...

2. Larkins v Kaitaia - Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...he considers that he can utilise and manage the interests more effectively than the current trustees. Finally, Mr Kahukiwa emphasised that there was no reasonable disadvantage to the affected parties should termination be granted. [30] Having carefully considered the submissions and the evidence on the Court file, our conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to make the order sought. This means that there must be a rehearing of the application. The Māori Land Court is ac...

3. BORA Maritime Security Bill [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...contain a reverse onus whereby the accused must prove something in order to escape liability (clauses 66 and 67). We are of the opinion that these provisions constitute "justified limitations" on the right to be presumed innocent that is protected by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching this view, we have taken into consideration the fact that the offences in question may be described as public welfare regulatory in nature and the importance of ensuring that the...

4. BORA Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...in section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights could apply. We note, however, that this issue has yet to be determined in New Zealand and it is unclear whether the courts would agree that individuals facing sanctions under a civil penalty regime have the protections provided for in section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. 31. Irrespective of the debate as to whether section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act applies to civil penalty regimes, we consider that these offences would amount to a reasona...

5. Toiloloi v Letalu [2014] NZIACDT 93 (18 September 2014) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned.” [13] When imposing sanctions those statutory purposes require consideration of at least four factors which may materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [13.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [13.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Regist...

6. Justice Matters - issue 06 - March 2017 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...Warren. Family Focus Rotorua and Barnardos have been contracted to deliver the service in Rotorua and Whanganui, respectively, until the end of February 2018. It is a free service that is initially available in cases where the Family Court has imposed protective conditions on a Parenting Order under section 51 or section 48 of the Care of Children Act 2004. The parties may be referred to the service at the discretion of the court. The pilot is part of the Ministerial Work Programme on...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 6 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...2020 in support of her application for removal. BNZ asserts that the conversation was intended to be confidential and was conducted for the purpose of BNZ obtaining legal advice from its lawyer. As a result, BNZ claims that the conversation is protected by legal privilege and that it has not taken any steps to waive this privilege. Is the issue now moot? [11] Ms Bowen’s primary response to the claim of privilege is that, because the references to the alleged privileged communi...

8. National Standards Committee 1 v Reed [2021] NZLCDT 31 (2 December 2021) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...been established, may demonstrate insight by the practitioner into the causes and effects of the wrongdoing. This, coupled with acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, may indicate that a lesser penalty than striking off is sufficient to protect the public in the future. [188] For the same reason, the practitioner’s previous disciplinary history may also assume considerable importance. In some cases, the fact that a practitioner has not been guilty of wrongdoings in the pas...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 195 Canyon Vineyard Limited v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 913 KB]

   ...expressing a complaint that the effects on Canyon were difficult to assess. [38] That said, we acknowledge Canyon's point that the evidence originally submitted by Bendigo fell short of the standard expected by the court. [39] Having given careful consideration to the applications and to the competing legal submissions, we are broadly in agreement with Bendigo's criticisms of Canyon's case. We note that our substantive decision set out many of the reasons for that,...

10. Livingstone v Rawhiti - Tokaanu Township 2B (2025) 496 Aotea MB 45 (296 AOT 45) [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...with the retention of Māori land and the effective use, management, and development of that land by the owners, the court should provide ways to determine or facilitate the settlement of disputes and other matters among owners. This includes protection of minority interests in any land against an oppressive majority, and to protection of majority interests against an unreasonable minority. Also to ensure fairness in dealings with the owners of any land in multiple ownership, and to...