Search Results

1. WVU v Real Estate Agents Authority Jurisdiction Objection [2014] NZHRRT 49 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...The legislature and the Courts are well aware that the hearing of a case in public requires individuals to give evidence which may be embarrassing or humiliating. Nevertheless, the public interest, demanding the fair and efficient administration of justice, consistently trumps any personal features. A party who chooses to initiate a hearing which Parliament stipulates is to be held in public must take all the unpalatable consequences, not only of an adverse substantive decision but also on...

2. Hunia v Skerrett-White - Kawerau A8D (2021) 263 Waiariki MB 93 (263 WAR 93) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20100012352 WĀHANGA Under Sections 19, 37, 237, 238 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Kawerau A8D Block I WAENGA I A Between ME And KANI HUNIA Te Kaitono Applicant COLLEEN SKERRETT-WHITE AND TOMAIRANGI FOX Ngā Kaiurupare Respondents Nohoanga: Hearing On...

3. Otago Standards Committee v Duff [2022] NZLCDT 4 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...and specific. [6] The Tribunal considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances, both of the offending and the practitioner. In relation to the latter, because of the protective purposes, the practitioner is not able to avail him or herself of matters in mitigation which would be of assistance in a criminal sentencing context: “The aim of professional discipline is primarily protective rather than punitive and considerations that can mitigate punishment in a criminal context hav...

4. Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 001 [pdf, 204 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 001 ACR 15/23, 17/23, and 18/23 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 162(1) OF THE ACT BETWEEN TERENCE EASTHOPE Applicant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Submissions: The Appellant is self-represented L Hawes-Gandar and F Becroft for the Corporatio...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 201 Pilgrim Ors v Attorney-General Ors [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...nearly as may be practicable with the provisions of the Act or Regulations affecting any similar case or the provisions of the High Court Rules 2016 affecting any similar case. [4] Regulation 68 reaffirms the Court’s discretion and sets out the matters that the Court may have regard to, and may not have regard to, when making orders as to costs. [5] Pausing there, it might be said (although it was not argued) that the Court need go no further: the Regulations have set out the ...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 95 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...interim reinstatement.1 [3] The second is an application for costs after I issued a judgment ordering removal of the AVOs’ relationship problems to the Court.2 [4] Initially, the AVOs said costs should lie where they fall in respect of both matters, but a fallback position was developed where they sought costs on the removal matter but said that these should be equivalent to any liability imposed on them in the reinstatement matter. The two liabilities would then be set off ag...

7. Foreman v Sanders – Estate of Rachel Ngeungeu Zister (2013) 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 286 (63 WMN 286) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Rachel Zister appointed as a trustee pursuant to clause 2.2 of her Will. Ms McKenzie deposes at paragraph 28 of her affidavit that whenua has a deep meaning. She attaches as exhibit “I” to her affidavit a publication from the Ministry of Justice. In a section intituled “The Relationship of Māori with the Land” the following extract appears: The land is a source of identity for Maori. Being direct descendants of Papatuanuku, Maori see themselves as not only of the land, b...

8. BORA Parihaka Reconciliation Bill [pdf, 4.3 MB]

   ...advice concludes that the Bill is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Please indicate whether you accept this advice. YES ci NO D If you accept this advice, please confirm whether you agree to a copy being referred to the Minister of Justice. YES d NO D If you accept this advice, I see no reason why this advice should not be published on the Ministty of Justice website. Please confirm whether this advice should be published on the website following introd7on of the Bill....

9. [2008] NZEmpC WC 20/08 Musa v Whanganui DHB and Soloman [pdf, 40 KB]

   MUSA V WHANGANUI DHB & ANOR WN WC 20/08 18 November 2008 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 20/08 WRC 24/08 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the second defendant for an order striking out the plaintiff's claim against him BETWEEN MEMO MUSA Plaintiff AND WHANGANUI DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD First Defendant AND CLIVE SOLOMON Second Defendant Hearing: 14 October...

10. Miller v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) & Anderton [2018] NZREADT 28 [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...breached r 9.10, the Committee was wrong to decide to take no action. He submitted that the Committee should then have inquired further into the complaint. [16] He also submitted that in deciding to take no action the Committee had taken irrelevant matters into account, namely whether the complaint was a dispute as to commission (in which Edinburgh had not accepted an offer by L J Hooker to split the commission), whether there were other avenues for Edinburgh to claim commission, a...