Search Results

1. Jessup v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 70 [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...construed or interpreted and applied to the facts is a question of law … . [25] Even if the qualifying criteria are made out, the Court has an extensive discretion in the grant or refusal of leave so as to ensure proper use of scarce judicial resources. Leave is not to be granted as a matter of course. One factor in the grant of leave is the wider importance of any contended point of law. Application for Leave to Appeal [12] Mr Jessup did not pose questions of law. He advance...

2. CI v MT [2023] NZDT 514 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...shed for removal and a second builder to provide a deck foundation for the shed at MT’s home. Because MT moved the shed to her property before seeking Council approval, J Design was required to provide a Council Code of Acceptance and make a Resource Consent application. The shed work was invoiced 0882 for $1,941.20 and MT paid J Design’s invoice. 3. MT also requested J Design to provide plans to convert the shed into a studio. The design was to include a kitchen, bedroo...

3. TH v KX [2023] NZDT 191 (26 June 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...into starting his new business unencumbered with paying his living expenses. Taking an objective and global assessment of what each party contributed, it appears from the evidence it was well balanced and equally matched. The devotion of time and resources were balanced between the parties and were consistent with what would be the usual give and take in a close relationship. I therefore find that TH was not unjustly enriched at KX’ expense. 18. KX also sought an order for vari...

4. Hurricanes Crusaders Chiefs v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 128 [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...[1963] NZLR 339, 353- 354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57. [25] Even if the qualifying criteria are made out, the Court has an extensive discretion in the grant or refusal of leave so as to ensure proper use of scarce judicial resources. Leave is not to be granted as a matter of course. One factor in the grant of leave is the wider importance of any contested point of law: eg. Jackson and Kenyon above. [5] An error of law will also arise where a decision is wrong...

5. NZBORA-Advice-Fair-Digital-News-Bargaining-Bill-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...justify any non-compliance. While the maximum financial penalties for strict liability offences in the Bill are significantly higher than those typically associated with strict liability offences, substantial penalties may be necessary to dissuade well-resourced parties from contravening their statutory obligations. A court retains the discretion to impose a lower penalty where to do so would be proportionate in the circumstances. Section 27(3) – Right to civil litigation 26. Sectio...

6. HC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 391 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...warranty that it caused works to be done without obtaining a building consent when one was required? 4. HC claimed X Ltd breached clause 9.2(5) of the agreement where the vendor warranted that for any works it had done, it had obtained ‘any permit, resource consent, or building consent required by law”. 5. NN, director of X Ltd, considered a building consent was not required because the existing bathrooms were only renovated prior to the sale and there was no movement of the wat...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 22 Menzies v Corrigan [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...[9] Other factors, including the likely merits of any related challenge, can also be relevant.11 Ultimately, the overarching consideration is the interests of justice. 8 Grove v Archibald [1998] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129. 9 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. 10 Assured Financial Peace Ltd v Pais [2010] NZEmpC 50 at [5]; and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bilgola Enterprises Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 48 (CA)....

8. [2024] NZEmpC 165 Berryman v Fonterra Coopertive Group Ltd - Interlocutory [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...Practice Directions <www.employmentcourt.govt.nz> at No 11(4). 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 180. 7 Duncan v Osborne Building Ltd (1992) 6 PRNZ 85 (CA) at 87. 8 Grove v Archibald [1998] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129; and Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. the interests of the parties and generally have regard to the following non-exhaustive list of factors:9 (a) whether the challenge will be rende...

9. Wai 3300, 6.2.018 Wānanga ā-rohe background paper [pdf, 598 KB]

   ...and self-government.13 The Central North Island (Wai 1200) Tribunal considered the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga extends to Māori the right to: (b) constitutional status as the first people (tangata whenua); (c) manage their own policy, resources, and affairs within the minimum parameters necessary for the operation of the State; (d) enjoy cooperation and dialogue with the Government; and 8 New Zealand Māori Council, A Discussion Paper on Future Māori Development and Legis...

10. Māori Trustee – Mourea Papakāinga 3D (1995) 240 Rotorua MB 212 (240 ROT 212) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

    ...beneficiaries legal or practical Interests and a particular vulnerability of the beneficiary. These factors can be gleaned from decisions of the Canadian jurisdiction namely Frame v Smith 119871 2 SCR 99,137 and Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14. Express endorsement of those principles within this Jurisdiction II contained within the judgement of the Court of Appeal; OHL International (NZ) Ltd v Richmond Ltd (1993) 3 NZLR 10. At page 23 fine 5 th...