Search Results

1. Wright v Ngamoki-Cameron - Heretatua (manu on the Tītī Island of Taukihepa) [2015] Chief Judge's MB 108 (2015 CJ 108) [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...AND ELIZABETH SARAH WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 December 2013 at 2013 Chief Judge's MB 1044-1100 (Heard at Invercargill) Appearances: Leone Farquhar for Elizabeth Sarah Wright Carl Ngamoki-Cameron for himself Judgment: 17 March 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC Copies to: McCaw Lewis Lawyers, DX GP 20020, PO Box 9348, Hamilton 3240 Attention: Leone Farquhar: leone.farquhar@mccawlewis.co.nz mailto:...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 52 Dillon v Tullycrine Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   CHRISTOPHER DILLON v TULLYCRINE LIMITED [2020] NZEmpC 52 [28 April 2020] ORDER FOR NON-PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED AT [51] OF THIS JUDGMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2020] NZEmpC 52 EMPC 394/2018 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER DILLON Plaintiff AND TULLYCRINE LIMITE...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 185 McPherson v Oji Fibre Solutions (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...MCPHERSON Applicant AND OJI FIBRE SOLUTIONS (NZ) LIMITED Respondent Hearing: Submissions-only hearing held on 12 October 2022 Appearances: S R Mitchell, counsel for applicant D J France, counsel for respondent Judgment: 17 October 2022 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] This decision resolves an application by the applicant, Stephen McPherson, for special leave to remove a personal grievance proceeding from the Employ...

4. LCRO 33/2016 GW v AX (27 June 2018) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...the CPLR, and the provisional remedy of civil arrest that was carried into the CPLR as Article 61 was repealed in 1979” (Siegel, New York Practice, 4th edition, section 513). In fact, when body execution did exist, it was for the enforcement of judgments and not for compulsion of payment prior to the existence of a judgment. [70] That view was adopted without qualification by the Supreme Court of Colorado which said:23 20 We find nothing in section 12-5-120 that would permit an att...

5. Solomon v Johnson - Te Mata E3 Block (2017) 139 Waikato Maniapoto MB 240 (139 WMN 240) [pdf, 508 KB]

   ...RIKIRANGI REX JOHNSON AND HECTOR CONNOR Respondents Hearing: 2-3 November 2016 (Heard at Hamilton) Appearances: Ms Kelly Dixon and Ms Alisha Castle, Counsel for the applicants Mr Curtis Bidois, Counsel for the respondents Judgment: 02 May 2017 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S TE A MILROY Copies to: K Dixon and A Castle, Dixon & Co Lawyers, P O Box 10081 Dominion Road, Auckland, kelly@dixonandcolawyers.com and a...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...decision".41 We agree. [66] Section 1 04 enables, rather than requires, a decision-maker to disregard adverse effects of an activity on the environment if a plan 'permits an activity with that effect'. That allows for the exercise of sensible judgment. For the following reasons, we find it would be non-sensical to ignore the effects of removing trees and of recreational activities, given the evidence. On the evidence, the trees contribute to the amenity values of the...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 088 Save Wanaka Lakefront Reserve Inc v Queenstown District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...decision".41 We agree. [66] Section 1 04 enables, rather than requires, a decision-maker to disregard adverse effects of an activity on the environment if a plan 'permits an activity with that effect'. That allows for the exercise of sensible judgment. For the following reasons, we find it would be non-sensical to ignore the effects of removing trees and of recreational activities, given the evidence. On the evidence, the trees contribute to the amenity values of the...

8. EU v VK LCRO 233 / 2010 (9 August 2011) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...dissatisfaction with arrangements for the above matters. Complaints were also directed at the inclusion of „without prejudice‟ content in an affidavit, and other matters. The Applicant took the view that the Practitioner had “a general attitude of judgement and hostility towards me”, that he promoted “conflict rather than resolution”, and encouraged “anger in his client rather than diffusing it”. [4] The Practitioner denied the allegations. He informed the Sta...

9. LCRO 140/2017 ZS v XD (23 July 2018) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [11] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:2 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

10. LCRO 78/2019 EW v PT and AM (3 February 2021) [pdf, 142 KB]

    ...concerning his insurance claim, and if not, whether they breached Rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“RCCC”). (ii) Whether at all times, Mr PT and/or Mr AM exercised their professional judgment solely for the benefit of Mr EW, subject only to the bounds of the law and their professional obligations, and if not, whether they breached Rule 5.2 of the RCCC. [17] The following extracts from the Committee’s determination addre...