Search Results

1. [2022] NZACC 198 – Roberts v ACC (11 October 2022) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...with the result that an extension of time should generally be granted, desirably without opposition from the respondent. [38] The ultimate question when considering the exercise of the discretion to extend time under r 29A is what the interests of justice require. That necessitates an assessment of the particular circumstances of the case. Factors which are likely to require consideration include: (a) The length of the delay. Clearly, the time period between the expiry of the appe...

2. Nicholas v Caudwell - Succession to Walker Whakaahua Kameta (2021) Chief Judges MB 1023 (2021 CJ 1023) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20140008651 CJ 2014/15 WĀHANGA Under Section 45 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Succession to Walker Whakaahua Kameta I WAENGA I A Between PHYLLIS RANGI NICHOLAS JANE TIWHA ANDRE NICHOLAS Ngā Kaitono Applicants ME And KAY CAUDWELL JOHN KAMETA Ngā Kaiurupare Respondent...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 171 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd costs [pdf, 72 KB]

   JAN SUSAN BRACEWELL v RICHMOND SERVICES LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 171 [17 September 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 171 ARC 91/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for costs BETWEEN JAN SUSAN BRACEWELL Plaintiff AND RICHMOND SERVICES LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers by documents filed on...

4. [2022] NZACC 62 – Hristovski v ACC (13 April 2022) [pdf, 165 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2022] NZACC 62 ACR 051/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN MARJAN HRISTOVSKI Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Judgment on the papers. Submissions: The Appellant is self-represented R Wanigasekera for the Respondent Date of Judgment: 13 April 2022

5. BT Ltd v X Ltd [2022] NZDT 131 (8 September 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

6. N Ltd v LX [2025] NZDT 204 (12 May 2025) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised...

7. DN v IL Ltd [2023] NZDT 644 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

8. JR v ST LCRO 57/2015 (2 December 2016) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...serving only to cause distress, inconvenience or annoyance. [15] The Committee found that the complaint was vexatious because: (a) For the reasons already summarised it had little or no real prospect of success and concerned trivial and/or frivolous matters. (b) It had had the effect of distressing, inconveniencing, annoying and/or vexing Mr ST. (c) It arose in the context of a series of disputes between Mr JR and Mr ST involving the complaints process and the courts. (d) The...

9. [2006] NZEmpC AC 43/06 Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd v Kapadia [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...statutory mandate but equally not to adopt rigid rules as such rigidities could prevent the proper exercise of the Court’s powers. This is to be done by identifying broad established principles which can be expanded to develop when the interests of justice require so that the proper exercise of the courts’ powers are not prevented. Anton Piller: “jurisdiction” or “power” [21] The word “jurisdiction” means different things in different contexts. But in th...

10. Environment Court Annual Review 2016 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

    ...14th Annual Colloquium of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Academy of Environmental Law – Oslo, Norway ..................................................................... 22 Second International Forum of Environmental Justice, Santiago Chile ................................ 22 International Symposium on Environmental Adjudication in the 21st Century .................... 22 Environment Court of New Zealand Annual Review 2016 3 APPENDIX 1 .............