Search Results

1. Barcello-Gemmell - Gore Blocks XVII and XIX Sec 90B2 (2001) 95 South Island MB 36 (95 SI 36) [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...interests of the lalter need not concern me. I reject this idea, which I do not consider to have the backing of either tikanga or fairness. I consider it is incumbent upon the Court to grant occupation orders always with an eye to the future, and to protecting the interests of the owners of the land yet unborn. . In concluding this topic, I should just note that the George Love Whanau Trust, although oppos ing the application, were not themselves seeking a further occupation site. They...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 180 McKay [pdf, 752 KB]

   ...sufficient detail to satisfy the purpose for which it is required. 20 This standard is applicable both to the applicant, who must provide enough information, and to the consent authority, which ought not to require too much. Where the use of land is protected as an existing use under s 10, then it is at least doubtful how far the consent authority can reasonably go in requiring that use to be assessed as if it were a new use. [53] In considering the conditions of consent, the consen...

3. [2019] NZEmpC 83 Pitman v Advanced Personnel Services Ltd [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...Authority’s order, because the amount awarded has not been shown to be in error by being excessive. Plainly, Mr Pitman’s actions in attempting to give A Temp a springboard advantage resulted in his former employer incurring significant costs in protecting its interests. The steps taken by Advanced Personnel were justified and inevitably attracted considerable expense that it was entitled to seek to recover. [58] Concluding that the indemnity was binding has a consequence for...

4. Guo v PwC (Further Discovery) [2022] NZHRRT 6 [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...claimed. [63] The application rests on a fundamental misconception of the nature of privilege for communications with legal advisers as well as litigation privilege (which together make up legal professional privilege). Both forms of privilege are protected by the Evidence Act 2006, ss 53, 54 and 56. [64] If a solicitor swears an affidavit as to the privileged status of documents, the court requires cogent evidence to challenge that view, before going behind the affidavit pursuant t...

5. Vine v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment) [2024] NZACC 007 [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...the 18 per cent (12 per cent being the lump sum payment already paid for pre-1999 injuries) leaving Mr Vine with a WPI rating of 6 per cent, which fell below the 10 per cent statutory threshold. [67] Dr Lim’s assessment is thorough and was carefully and professionally carried out and I accept it. There is no evidence of any obvious flaw contained in it. In fairness to Mr Vine, the Corporation arranged for Dr Lim’s initial assessment and amended assessment to be peer review...

6. Proactive-release-Sentencing_Reinstating-three-strikes_Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 788 KB]

   ...34(1)(a) allows the court to sentence an offender (to the mandatory penalty in the case of the reinstated three strikes regime) and simultaneously order that the offender be detained in a hospital as a special patient or secure facility as a special care recipient. Section 34(1)(b) orders, which order that the offender be treated instead of passing sentence, will not be available when the qualifying sentence threshold is met. This is because orders under section 34(1)(b) discharge an indivi...

7. BN v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2025] NZACC 10 (21 January 2025) [pdf, 352 KB]

   ...upright birthing position, but would not be available for the same birth injuries, where these had occurred in a reclined position. [48] Turning to the second point, the appellant relies on the opinions of Dr Walker and Professor Nielsen. Upon careful review, the Court finds their opinions do not support a causal link between gravity and the perineal tear. While Dr Walker and Professor Nielsen suggest that gravity, due to the upright birth position, contributed to the appellant&#03...

8. NH v Accident Compensation Corporation (Deemed Cover) [2025] NZACC 11 (27 January 2025) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...[2] Counsel for the appellant applied for orders prohibiting publication of the appellant’s name, address, or occupation, or particulars likely to lead to her identification. The application was made on the basis that orders are necessary to protect the appellant’s privacy, given the sensitive nature of some of the personal and medical history of the appellant. That was not opposed by the Corporation. [3] I am satisfied that it is necessary and appropriate to make orders prohib...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 150 Kaiuma Farm Limited v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 395 KB]

   ...The most critical on-site risk is Kaiuma Bay itself and the potential damage to the estuarine areas. This will be the depositional site for any fine sediment produced from the operation. And: - Avoiding sediment discharge to water bodies and protecting aquatic ecosystems is a critical element of road construction, even more so in the sensitive environment of Kaiuma Bay. The design process has considered the impact the construction and ongoing use of the road and landing infrastr...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 10  DQJ v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...the plaintiff’s dismissal was unjustified and that they would be permanently reinstated to their role following a substantive investigation in the Authority. [77] However, it is clear that any reintegration to the workplace would need to be carefully managed and adequately supported. The plaintiff is currently waiting for further medical reports and access to counselling. In the circumstances, it seems to me that a fair and just result would be to order interim reinstatement o...