Search Results

1. Williams v The Attorney General - Allotment 20 Parish of Waiheke (Waiheke Station) (2022) 238 Waikato Maniapoto MB 83 (238 WMN 83) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O WAIKATO MANIAPOTO In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto District A20210005133 WĀHANGA Under Section 18, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Allotment 20 Parish of Waiheke (Waiheke Station) I WAENGA I A Between ME And ME And HARRY PAORA WILLIAMS, PERCY AWAROA THOMPSON, PAULINE OGDEN, DANELLA ROEBECK, MIRIATA TAKAR...

2. Baigent v ACC [2014] NZACA 18 [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...of law must be capable of bona fide and serious argument; (iii) care must be taken to avoid allowing issues of fact to be dressed up as questions of law; (iv) where an appeal is limited to questions of law, a mixed question of law and fact is a matter of law; (v) a decision-maker’s treatment of facts can amount to an error of law. There will be an error of law where there is no evidence to support the decision, the evidence is inconsistent with the decision or the true and only r...

3. BORA National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...privacy interests should be taken [...]."1 9. The Bill provides for a wide range of inspection, search and seizure powers (with or without warrant), many of which duplicate those contained in the Search and Surveillance Bill as reported by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The overall purpose of these powers is to ascertain, secure and enforce compliance with obligations under the Bill. 10. The Bill contains the following inspection, search and seizure powers: • to require...

4. Cooney and Dempsey TRI 2022-100-001 Procedural Order 6 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...fact that the wrongs were separate but caused the same damage to the claimants (being economic loss) is sufficient to provide a route to relief against Mr Milne as a contributor or indemnifier to the Council. [45] In Hotchin, the learned Chief Justice observed that the “same damage” need not be “substantially or materially similar”, nor need it arise out of the same circumstances or fault, nor be the same measure. Nor does it turn on the cause of action. 5 Hotchin...

5. Wati v Corrections [2018] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...letter stated that the Prison Intelligence Unit wished to apologise for the delay in sending his mail and noted that, as Mr Wati was aware, his outgoing mail was screened for inappropriate content, such as threats or attempts to pervert the course of justice, and none had been found. [15] On 18 August 2014, Detective Constable Tilbury applied for a production order. The order was issued the same day and was served on the prison. [16] Mr Wati’s mail was thereafter forwarded to Detec...

6. LCRO 186/2017 and 84/2018 WE v VF (28 May 2019) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...briefly outlining his attendances and anticipated future attendances. [7] In about January 2011 Mr WE withdrew from acting for Mr VF in the Police prosecution after the Crown pointed out that he had previously acted for Z, albeit in unrelated matters.1 [8] In the following months Mr VF was represented by other lawyers. [9] Eventually the Crown withdrew an assault charge that Mr VF was facing and a jury acquitted him of another charge. [10] Following that acquittal, Ms P, a laype...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 254 G I Finlay Trustees Ltd v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 299 KB]

   GI FINLAY TRUSTEES LTD v WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TE TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 254 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 325A(7) of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN GI FINLAY TRUSTEES LIMITED, BETH MARY DANIEL and BARRY CARE DANIEL (ENV-2022-AKL-000189) Appellants AND WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge L J Semple Enviro

8. Hawke v ACC [2013] NZACA 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...the proceeding is to be heard under Part 5 of the 2001 Act or Part 9 of the 1982 Act, which involves the proper construction of s 391 of the 2001 Act. The public interest/general importance component is that it is in the interests of 3 justice that the effect and operation of s 391 is determined by the High Court, as a litigant must have clarity over the process of litigation. [6] The question of law argued by Mr Hlavac in later submissions and pursued at the hearing r...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 74 Nelmac Ltd v Reunited Employees Assoc Inc [pdf, 339 KB]

   ...REUNITED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v NELMAC LIMITED [2023] NZEmpC 74 [16 May 2023] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2023] NZEmpC 74 EMPC 468/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN REUNITED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND NELMAC LIMITED Defendant EMPC 137/2022 AND IN THE MA...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 141 2Air NZ Ltd v Kerr [pdf, 88 KB]

    ...authorities need to be considered with some degree of caution, in Framus Ltd v CRH plc, 5 the Supreme Court of Ireland was called upon to consider the requirement that documents sought on discovery must be relevant, directly or indirectly, to the matters in issue between the parties in the proceedings. In doing so, the Supreme Court endorsed the following statements of principle: (1) The Court must decide as a matter of probability as to whether any particular document is relev...