Search Results

1. [2020] NZREADT 24 - Schroder (16 June 2020) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...the offending occurred at a time when his personal circumstances were particularly difficult. On this point, we accept Ms Davies submission that while those circumstances may explain the offending, it cannot excuse it. [40] Taking the above matters into account, we have concluded that the appropriate penalty orders are for censure and a fine of $2,000. Committee’s application for costs Jurisdiction to order payment of costs [41] Section 110A of the Act has provided as follow...

2. Cooper v Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Ltd (Pre-Trial Admissibility Ruling) [2018] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...current form on the grounds that it is hearsay and is prejudicial. The response by Mr Cooper [13] The submissions for Mr Cooper point out that there does not appear to be any challenge that Ms Barrett's evidence is directly relevant to the matters before the Tribunal. On the question whether the evidence is hearsay, it is submitted the evidence is tended not as proof of the truth of what the unnamed colleague said. Rather it is evidence of what the unnamed colleague said to Ms Bar...

3. Von Tunzelman v Southland Regional Development Agency Ltd and Tracey Wayte Ltd (Strike-Out-Applications) [2022] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...enough for Mr Von Tunzelman to simply show that he raised a matter in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner if that aspect of the complaint was not notified by the Privacy Commissioner to the defendant. It is a fundamental requirement of natural justice that a defendant knows what it is that they are accused of doing wrong. [24] Accordingly, the Tribunal must strike out those parts of Mr Von Tunzelman’s claim before this Tribunal which relate to IPPs 5, 7 and 8 as they were not inv...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 25 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...because monetary damages were minimal. Breaches of collective agreement terms can have a broader impact on the workplace and employment relationships than that which can be measured in purely financial terms. It would not be in the interests of justice if such claims were shut down prematurely. [37] As noted in the recent Supreme Court decision of Smith v Fonterra Co- operative Group Ltd: “Pre-emptive elimination is only appropriate where it can be said that whatever the fact...

5. Kotahitanga Log Haulage Ltd v Forest Distribution Ltd - Mangaroa and other Blocks incorporated (2015) 126 Waiāriki MB 14 (126 WAR 14) [pdf, 245 KB]

   126 Waiāriki MB 14 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20140012611 UNDER Sections 22 and 269(4) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Mangaroa & Other Blocks Incorporated - Power of the Court to grant specific performance & Committee of Management BETWEEN KOTAHITANGA LOG HAULAGE LTD Applicant AND FOREST DISTRIBUTION LTD First Respondent AND P F OLSEN LTD Second Respondent AN...

6. Matchitt - Te Kaha 65 (2021) 251 Waiariki MB 154 (251 WAR 154) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...154 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20130008237 WĀHANGA Under Section 289, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Te Kaha 65 PARATENE MATCHITT Te kaitono Applicant A20130010961 WĀHANGA Under Section 289, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Te Kaha 65...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 188 Randwick Meat Co Ltd v Burns [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...– 2014 Christmas/New Year period Mr Burns sustained a personal injury and was off work for approximately three months. Upon his return he was required to attend a meeting on 28 March 2014 which was arranged to discuss a variety of work-related matters including informing Mr Burns about the GPS device that had been fitted to his vehicle. At the meeting, Mr Burns was handed a draft employment agreement to consider and told to return it with any comments. Discussions were held on...

8. NJUM v Vole [2020] NZIACDT 5 (29 January 2020) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...face-to-face meeting with her. [40] It was acknowledged by Mr Vole that he did not make file notes of his advice to the complainant. He now had a better understanding of cl 26(b) and (c) of the Code. He appreciated that oral discussions of important matters left the opportunity for misunderstanding. It was submitted by Mr Logan that the breaches of cl 26(b) and (c), while not trivial, were at the lower end of the spectrum. 7 [41] Mr Vole accepted that he did not declare the...

9. Rhodes v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 194 [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...activated symptoms. [37] In Calver,8 the appellant’s mesothelioma (which resulted in her death) was caused by asbestos inhalation when (between the ages of four and 10) she hugged her father in his work overalls or played at a building site. Justice Mallon allowed the appeal and stated: [102] The addition in s 25(1)(a) of “a series of events, other than a gradual process” reflects the common law that there can be a series of accidents (events of force) that cause an injury...

10. OIA-120014.pdf [pdf, 5.9 MB]

    Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 1 April 2025 Our ref: OIA 120014 Dear Official Information Act request: Pātaka Whenua Thank you for your email of 4 March 2025, requesting information about the Māori Land Court’s Pātaka Whenua system and a copy of the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of the Whenua Māori Programme, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Your request was as follows: I’m g...