Search Results

1. Karaitiana v Seager - Wharetoto 9 Balance Trust (2024) 491 Aotea MB 36 (491 AOT 36 ) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...aid at the same time as he files his response. [16] The rehearing application was filed on 29 May 2024, by way of memorandum of counsel filed by Mr Stoevelaar on behalf of Harvey and Tokoahu Karaitiana. A further application, using the courts forms, was filed on 6 June 2024. For current purposes I accepted the memorandum of counsel as the rehearing application. [17] At that point Mr Tootill confirmed that he now acted for the newly appointed trustees. [18] To meet the statutory...

2. McGregor v Hutchison - Mangamaire B13A Trust (2015) 40 Tākitimu MB 19 (40 TKT 19) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...comments that the applicants are in effect seeking a review of the current trustees’ role in these events. [2] Mr Hutchison accepts that he was convicted as described by the applicants. However both he and at least two of the current trustees request that he not be removed. The grounds argued were that Mr Hutchison has “done a lot” for the owners and for the trust over the years and that, in any case, he had repaid the money. It was also said that Mr Hutchison had been co...

3. Mohammadalibeigy v Yap [2015] NZIACDT 7 (13 February 2015) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...inter partes matter. Public interest issues arise in many professional disciplinary cases, and that is so in the present case. The complaint, as it is made out, is relevant to Mr Yap’s fitness to practice. [18] The Tribunal will take account of a request to withdraw a complaint, but it is not the complainant’s right to withdraw a complaint from the Tribunal. [19] This Tribunal, as is commonly the case for professional disciplinary tribunals, has an inquisitorial function. The Tribun...

4. 2017 NZSSAA 048 (18 August 2017) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...erroneous action or inaction on the part of the Ministry. If we can identify that there has been an erroneous action or inaction, or potential grounds for thinking that is the case on the evidence before us then we would have no hesitation in requesting that this matter be referred to the Minister. 6 [19] We have full regard to the appellant’s compelling explanation that she was not told of her potential entitlement to the CDA. That information considered on its own in...

5. [2013] NZCA 108 CA149/2013 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...The two applications relate to this order made by Judge Ford on 1 March 2013: (v) The plaintiff is to pay into Court the sum of $200,000 as security for the defendant’s costs or provide to the defendant and the Court a bond from a bank, in a form reasonably acceptable to the defendant by 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 3 April 2013. (Counsel to note the change of date from 1 April, which is Easter Monday). UNLESS THIS ORDER IS STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH, EACH OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE...

6. OV v PG LCRO 250 / 2010 and 242 / 2011 (7 August 2012) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...cover up her deficiencies. [20] There is an abundance of evidence that all of the information that was pertinent to the Applicant’s trial was before the Court, and that he could not have remained unaware of that evidence. Much of that evidence formed the basis of his appeal. [21] It is also clear from the information that the original charge of rape was amended to one of attempted rape for reasons related to inconsistencies in PF’s evidence. Although the Applicant claimed that...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 138 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...occur absent an order declaring each witness to be hostile. [16] The witness summonses are oppressive for the purposes of reg 34(3)(a) and are set aside on this basis. [17] Orders are made accordingly. [18] Costs are reserved at the request of counsel. Christina Inglis Chief Judge Judgment signed at 12.30 pm on 1 September 2020

8. LCRO 222/2017 RD v LC and BT (31 July 2019) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...[9] The parties have agreed to the review being dealt with on the papers. This review has been undertaken on the papers pursuant to s 206(2) of the Act, which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review based on all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [10] I record that having carefully read the materials proved by the parties there are no additional issues or questions in...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 036 Wellington City Council v Liffey Street Limited [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...submission that it is appropriate that a costs award in the sum of $3,500 be made jointly and severally against the Respondents. I go further and observe that in light of tl1e Respondents' failure to comply with two abatement notices and Council requests made on a series of inspections it was seriously arguable that an award of full costs was appropriate. The Council has been generous to tl1e Respondents in limiting its claim to two thirds 7 of actual costs. Outcome [16...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 141 Byrne v Coverstaff Recruitment Group Ltd [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...makes the following orders: (a) The plaintiff’s application for leave to file a notice of opposition is dismissed. (b) The defendant’s applications for unless orders, strike-out and security for costs are declined. [24] The Court also requests the Authority to submit to the Court a good faith report under s 181 of the Act outlining the extent to which the parties involved in the investigation facilitated rather than obstructed the Authority’s investigation and whether th...