Search Results

1. Solomon v Otte - Te Awapatiki- B2 & 2B3 (2021) 74 Te Waipounamu MB 125 (74 TWP 125) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...Respondent Nohoanga: Hearings 22 October 2020, 69 Te Waipounamu MB 35-86 (Heard at the Chatham Islands) 11 December 2020, 69 Te Waipounamu MB 87-147 (Heard at Christchurch) Kanohi kitea: Appearances Whakataunga: Judgment date J Paterson for the Respondent M Solomon in person 3 December 2021 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ REEVES Judgment of Judge S F Reeves Copies to: J Paterson, Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Center, P...

2. Samuela v ACC (Weekly compensation) [2024] NZACC 70 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 April 2024 Held at: Auckland District Court Appearances: H Peart and Ms E Manga for the Appellant C Hlavac for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 22 April 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation – Schedule 1, clauses 49 and 51, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision o...

3. Auckland Standards Committee v Andersen [2012] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...that striking off is the only proper professional disciplinary response. [70] Mr Morris referred the Tribunal to the decision of Bolton v Law Society,1 and to the decision of the full Court of the High Court in Dorbu v NZLS2 and the very recent judgment of Williams J in B v Canterbury Standards Committee No. 1 of the NZLS.3 [71] With respect we consider that the behaviour of the practitioners in the Dorbu and B cases respectively was far more reprehensible than that of Ms Andersen....

4. LCRO 382/2013 SC v JT (30 June 2017) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...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. [22] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:4 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 198 Aquastar Holdings Limited v Kawerau District Council [pdf, 841 KB]

   ...with s 278 of the Act and Rule 11.10 of the District Courts Rules 2014, the Court has the power to correct errors including accidental slips or omissions. Rule 11.10 is set out as follows: 11.10 Correction of accidental slip or omission (1) A judgment or order may be corrected by the court or the Registrar who made it, if it- (a) contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, whether or not made by an officer of the court; or (b) is drawn u...

6. [2019] NZCAA 13 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...that sale as the foundation for value, the profit and expenses incurred after importation are deducted from that price to infer the value at the time of importation. The profit and expenses may be calculated based on what is reasonable, and that judgment is informed by comparison with market values rather than necessarily accepting the importers’ actual costs and profits. [6.6] If the deductive value does not produce a satisfactory result, then a computed value may be used.8 T...

7. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Mr U [2024] NZLCDT 4 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...personally attacked by opposing counsel and that there was a campaign against him by means of complaints to the Law Society. He stated he found every document filed by opposing counsel “to be deeply offensive” and that he found “most of the Judgments of this Court, to date, to be deeply offensive”. [21] He went on to refer to psychological and financial abuse being inflicted upon him as a result of his colleagues’ conduct. Mr U advised the Court that Ms H and Mr J had...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 111 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...earlier proposed and about which we noted concern that this would create “significant administrative uncertainty”. [72] We appreciate that the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of standards and other rules is a matter of degree and judgment. However, as opposed to draft r 46.5.WW, Mr Scaife’s drafting would lead to significantly greater and unwarranted administrative complexity. [73] A single global ‘people’ cap exceedance of which would trigger non- complyin...

9. Dr Te Kipa Kepa Brian Morgan - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR. TE KIPA KEPA BRIAN MORGAN ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST 26th October 2017 Counsel Acting RB Enright Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House 28 Cust

10. [2014] NZEmpC 119 Pact Group v SFWU & PSA [pdf, 271 KB]

    ...Hearing: 16 and 17 June 2014 (Heard at Dunedin) And by memoranda filed on 27 June and 1 July 2014 Appearances: B Dorking, counsel for plaintiff T Oldfield, counsel for first defendant C McNamara, counsel for second defendant Judgment: 8 July 2014 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN A The plaintiff did not breach cl 37 of the parties’ collective agreement. B The plaintiff breached s 9 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by entering into c...