Search Results

1. BORA Statutes Amendment Bill [pdf, 382 KB]

   ...The only amendment that appeared to give rise to a prima facie issue of inconsistency was the proposed new section 30DA of the Weights and Measures Act 1987 (the Act). Under this provision, the Secretary (namely the chief executive of the department responsible for the administration of the Act) may suspend the accreditation of any person for non-compliance with regulatory measures without giving the accredited person the opportunity to be heard. In our opinion this amendment appears to g...

2. BORA Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...reestablish the Electoral Commission as a body encompassing the current functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission from 1 October 2010. The explanatory note indicates that a second Bill will be introduced to transfer the responsibilities of the Chief Registrar of Electors to the reestablished Electoral Commission on 1 October 2012. The Bill seeks to provide for more integrated, efficient and consistent oversight and execution of operational electoral m...

3. [2010] NZCA 320 CA239/2010 Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...unjustified, both procedurally and on the merits, different balancing factors should be applied. In particular, reinstatement should only be refused in the face of “the strongest of evidence” and that the effects of reinstatement on those responsible for the unjustified dismissal should be given little or no weight. The applicant therefore seeks to argue that there should be a “strong presumption” for reinstatement where dismissal is unjustified on the merits. Further, the...

4. [2011] NZCA 208 CA147/2011 Clifford Lamar Ltd v Gyenge [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...it a fair hearing. We revert in [6] below to the main allegations on the latter score. [3] Given the factual focus of the application, we asked Mr Harris to formulate for us the proposed question or questions of law. Framed as a question, his response was: could Judge Ford reasonably have come to the conclusions he did on the available evidence? [4] That is not a question of law. If the Employment Court had made findings of fact unsupported by any evidence that could give rise...

5. GT v TK LCRO 06 / 2011 (20 January 2012) [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...the letter of dismissal. The Practitioner had played no part in the Applicant’s dismissal, but had written to the Applicant on 20 November 2009 informing him that he (the Practitioner) was a “new member of the Board” who had “delegated responsibility to write to (the Applicant)”. The Practitioner had only recently joined the Board and there is no evidence of the Practitioner ever having met the Applicant or having acted for him in a professional context. [8] The Pract...

6. McLeod v C Yap [2013] NZIACDT 43 (15 July 2013) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...for any professional time which was charged at a high rate. [3] The complaint has been upheld on the basis Ms Yap engaged in misleading behaviour during the engagement process. [4] However, Ms Yap was only one of the licensed immigration advisers responsible for dealing with Mr and Ms McLeod. The Tribunal expressly found that while Ms Yap’s behaviour was misleading, it could not find it was dishonest on the evidence before the Tribunal. Ms Yap was under a duty to ensure the informati...

7. JT v QI LCRO 273 / 2011 (7 September 2012) [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...between the Applicant’s brother and the brother’s wife. The Practitioner acted for the wife. [2] The Standards Committee identified a number of documents that the Applicant had placed before the Committee, and had also reviewed the Practitioners response to the complaint. The Practitioner had advised the Committee that the matter was heard some 18 years ago and he no longer had the file, adding that the Applicant had raised at least two complaints against him in respect of the...

8. Marine and Coastal Area - An overview of the act [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...appropriate action to encourage public compliance with conditions applying to a wähi tapu area. Disclaimer Although every effort has been made to ensure that this guidance document is as accurate as possible, the Ministry of Justice will not be held responsible for any action arising out of its use. Direct reference should be made to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and expert advice should be sought if necessary.

9. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...that its worker used tape on the drain the second time round. EC disputes this and says, from what she could observe tape was only applied part way through the removal of the faulty grouting second time round, and she believes that was done in response to the second scratch being made. She points out that such a scratch with a sharp hand-tool could also have been made through any tape applied. [8] It is very likely UX Ltd caused the second scratch because it is almost identical to...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 145 Cavanagh v Piha Memorial RSA Inc [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...and recorded in the Authority’s determination, it is hard to see how her position would be improved by pursuing the challenge. Ms Cavanagh’s prospects of success are uncertain [20] In the Authority, Ms Cavanagh presented her case without any response from the RSA. The orders of the Authority were on the basis of the information she supplied. On the limited additional information now provided, it is not possible to say that there are reasonable prospects of a more favourable ou...