Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 037 Ngai Tamahaua Hapu Committee v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 782 KB]

   ...Hapu Committee submit that no other party is unduly prejudiced by these appeals because the Hapu Committee were never consulted or notified of the commencement of the enabling works and there is utility in hearing the appeals to resolve ongoing matters, especially those resulting from the finding of koiwi. They submit that the timing issues in relation to the projects have been brought on the Council by its own actions. Conversely, they submit that the Hapu Committee will be unduly...

2. Mr G v Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 [2024] NZLCDT 28 (11 September 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...NAME OF TRUST, COMPANY NAMES, NAME OF RESPONDENT’S SISTER. THESE ORDERS MADE PURSUANT TO S 240 LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS ACT 2006. NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2024] NZLCDT 28 LCDT 021/21 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN MR G Applicant AND WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Respondent CHAIR Dr J Adams MEMBERS Ms K King Ms N McMahon Ms M Noble Prof D Scot...

3. [2008] NZEmpC AC 20/09 Roebeck & Anor v Bradford Trust Ltd [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...• The Employment Relations Authority did not act independently of the judgment of the High Court in associated proceedings. • The Authority’s award of damages is contrary to the principles of contract law. • It is in the interests of justice that a stay be granted pending determination of the challenge. • If a stay is not granted, their rights of appeal will be rendered nugatory. • The benefit of a successful appeal will be lost to the plaintiffs if a stay is not gra...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 73 Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Rodkiss [pdf, 74 KB]

   CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v DAVID RODKISS NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 73 [19 May 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 73 CRC 52/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a stay of proceedings BETWEEN CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED Applicant AND DAVID RODKISS Respondent Hearing: (on the papers - submissio...

5. Horton v Māori Trustee – Awarua 3D3 No 12B and Awarua 3D3 No 13 (2013) 297 Aotea MB 178 (297 AOT 178) [pdf, 101 KB]

   297 Aotea MB 178 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20130001722 IN THE MATTER OF Awarua 3D3 No 12B and Awarua 3D3 No 13 UNDER s 19(1)(b), (2) Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 BETWEEN KENNETH MAXWELL HORTON Applicant AND MĀORI TRUSTEE Respondent Hearing: 13 February 2013 Counsel: Mr G Takarangi for the applicant Mr G Shaw for the respondent Judgment: 14 February 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Int...

6. H & Anor v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 9 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...agency would clearly suffer from findings against the licensees or either of them. [21] The Authority does not accept that it has carried out “unjust actions” in the complaints process. It is put that the licensees were afforded their natural justice rights, and indeed, allowed further time to file their submissions on penalty. We find no evidence of any injustice and we would not expect such allegations to have any merit. [22] Finally, the fact of an appeal itself is not suffic...

7. BORA Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...and gathering of various natural resources, to be undertaken by members of each claimant iwi with the permission of that iwi (see, for example, Part 2, Subparts 8-11); 4.4.3 Provision for forms of participation in particular resource management matters (see, for example, Part 2, Subparts 13-14); and 4.4.4 The vesting of land and other rights (see, for example, Part 3, Subparts 1-4). 5. In addition: 5.1 Part 7 deals with governance reorganization and taxation for Ngāti Tama ki Te

8. MacDonald - Oraka 4A2 (2006) 111 Wairoa MB 32 (111 WR 32) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ..."more" effectively on General land. The applicant does not require a status change to manage or utilise the land more effectively. She has the financial support to do tillS without the status change. [23] Also in Bruce v Edwards (2002 CA 19/02) Justice Blanchard made the comment in relation to s136(I)(d)/93 that the thrust of subsection (d) does seem to be on development of the land by the applicant rather than sale. " [24] That is s136(1)(d) deals with the developm...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 131 A Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Ltd [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...on an interest bearing deposit and paid out only on the orders of a Judge. [2] It was also agreed that a Judicial Settlement Conference (JSC) should be established for early June 2016 so that the parties would have an opportunity to resolve the matters which were the subject of the challenge. [3] The JSC, over which I was to preside, did not proceed. Shortly before it was scheduled to occur, counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the challenge would not now be proceed...

10. LCRO 278/2016 [Company 1] v ZC (17 June 2019) [pdf, 213 KB]

    ...for not complying with Mr RG’s s 261 request. [29] Section 266(2)(b) of the Companies Act provides that the Court may order a person who has failed to comply with a request pursuant to s 261 to comply, and/or attend Court to be examined about matters relating to the company, and to produce “the books, records or documents relating to the business, accounts, or affairs of the company in that person’s possession or under that person’s control”. [30] Mr RG’s remedy was...