Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 171 Thorne v Rolton [pdf, 352 KB]

   ...returned to work but being blasé about not having done so. The evidence about this social media post was only second-hand and inconclusive. The post itself was not placed in evidence and neither Mr Thorne, nor Mr Cameron, explained who had been responsible for it. They were not able to recall, except very generally, what was said on it. However, it was apparent that the post, whatever its actual content, was made towards either the middle of the week or perhaps the end of the w...

2. Final Env-Reg-Report-2019-20 [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...determining cases. The court’s Judicial Resources Manager co-ordinates the court’s sitting programme. This follows directions from the Principal Environment Court Judge who, pursuant to s 251(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the court. 1.4 The Court’s Jurisdiction The Environment Court is a specialist court of record established under section 247 of the RMA. It’s the p...

3. Final Env-Reg-Report-2019-20 [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...determining cases. The court’s Judicial Resources Manager co-ordinates the court’s sitting programme. This follows directions from the Principal Environment Court Judge who, pursuant to s 251(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the court. 1.4 The Court’s Jurisdiction The Environment Court is a specialist court of record established under section 247 of the RMA. It’s the p...

4. Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...Oranga Tamariki System Bill; and • Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. 6. The Bill applies to the delivery of services or support by agencies or their contracted partners within the Oranga Tamariki system. The Oranga Tamariki system is responsible for providing services and support to children, young people, and their family and whānau in New Zealand. 7. The Bill establishes the Independent Monitor of the Oranga Tamariki system (“the Monitor”), a statutory offi...

5. Cook v Manawatu Community Law Centre (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 57 [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...Fairness, reasonableness and equity and good conscience do not justify a costs award for Ms Abraham against Ms Cook. [42] Turning then to consider Ms Abraham’s claim for costs against the MCLC, she says the MCLC’s argument that Ms Abraham was the responsible agency was unsuccessful and costs should follow the event. Ms Abraham also says that it was reckless and procedurally unfair for the MCLC to proceed with its attack on Ms Abraham after she had been removed as a party and was not...

6. Guide for Maori land trusts incorporations and reservations [pdf, 372 KB]

   COVID-19 Response Act: guide for Māori land trusts, Māori incorporations, and Māori reservations The COVID-19 Response (Requirements for Entities – Modifications and Exemptions) Act 2020 provides temporary relief for governance entities who are unable to meet their statutory obligations or the obligations in their constitution or rules because of the COVID-19 outbreak. This guide provides information on the Act for the following governance entities: • Māori land trusts...

7. 2021-06-15 D-G of Conservation - MOC - Submissions in response to Amicus Curiae memorandum [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...refusing consent? (c) Can rights of priority be recognised in the provisions of PC7 if they ceased to have effect on enactment of the RMA (s 366(g)) and/or deemed permits finally expire on 1 October 2021 (s 413(3))? 2 In summary, Dr Somerville’s response, and my response on behalf of the Director-General of Conservation (Director-General), respectively to these questions are: (a) Yes and yes. (b) No and yes. (c) Yes and yes. Question one – I agree deemed permits are a cr...

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

   ...his unsuccessful application, Mr Von Tunzelman made information privacy requests to Great South and HR South in August and September 2019 respectively. Those requests were responded to, but Mr Von Tunzelman alleges that the timing and nature of the responses was in breach of the Privacy Act 1993 (the Privacy Act) and therefore an interference with his privacy. [3] On 16 July 2020 Mr Von Tunzelman filed this claim against Great South and HR South alleging an interference with his privacy...

9. Norman v Pohatu - Te Hapua 42 (2022) 256 Taitokerau MB 1 (256 TTK 1) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...June 2020 for shareholders to vote on the proposed policy. That meeting was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [17] Due to COVID restrictions, the committee arranged for shareholders to cast postal/electronic votes per the COVID-19 Response (Requirements for Entities – Modifications and Exemptions) Act 2020. Mr Norman says this was a significant issue and the committee should have arranged voting in person. [18] I accept this was an important issue for the shareh...

10. SM v UU Ltd [2022] NZDT 159 (15 December 2022) [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...Neither do I find it evidence of guilt that NC suggested other mechanisms of damage, even if SM finds these mechanisms implausible. This does not prove NC was disingenuous in suggesting them. [27] I also understand SM believes NC has been tardy in his responses to him and only responded when threaten with legal action. Again, this is not evidence of liability but rather evidence of a company that would prefer not to engage having satisfied itself it had no liability. Again, I find nothing...