Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC AC 49/09 Norske Skog Tasman Ltd v Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union & Anor [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...(vi)). On the other, it is also to ensure that the role of the Authority and the Court, in resolving employment relationship problems, is to determine the rights and obligations of the parties rather than to fix terms and conditions of employment (s 101(d)). Further, it is to recognise that if problems in employment relationships are to be resolved promptly, expert problem-solving support, information and assistance need to be available at short notice to the parties to those relationship...

2. Martin v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 407) & Ors [2017] NZREADT 14 [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...apology, a fine of “at least $7,000”, and orders for payment of the appellant’s legal costs in relation to the Committee and Tribunal proceedings ($47,557.75), and the appellant’s costs in marketing and re-selling the property ($33,101.75). She submitted that the penalty imposed on the third respondent should be censure, an order for an apology, a fine of “at least $10,000” and orders for payment of the appellant’s legal costs, and marketing/re-selling costs, as...

3. Beattie v Official Assignee (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...The Assignee submits that taken cumulatively, these factors warrant recognition in the form of a moderate adverse costs order. Mr Beattie’s submissions on costs [10] The relevant points made by Mr Beattie in his letter dated 31 May 2021 are: [10.1] The payment demands made by the Assignee under the two deeds associated with the Beattie family trust (see the Tribunal’s decision at [15] to [30]) left Mr Beattie aggrieved not only in relation to satisfaction of the demands but also i...

4. Lett - Waipu 4A3E1 (2021) 431 Aotea MB 100 (431 AOT 100) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...Raimapaha Rei left a will dated 6 December 1985 and probate was granted on 9 June 2005. Mr Brown has submitted a letter dated 1 February 2001 where, in essence, he contends that Mr Lett may not be receiving a fair value for his 431 Aotea MB 101 interest in the lands he seeks to gift to Mr Waitai. Mr Lett in response to Mr Brown’s letter simply said, “I just need to get this over and done with so I can move on with my own life”. Te take Issue [3] The issue for deter...

5. Maritime Powers Bill [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...action and responses. There are many opportunities for those engaging in illegal activity to evade law enforcement activities in open waters and delays in obtaining a warrant could impede law enforcement. 2 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 3 Ibid at [162] per Blanchard J. 4 Hamed v R, above n3, at [172]. 5 See, for example, R v Rao (1984) 12 CCC (3d) 97. 15. Clause 16 of the Bill sets out the criteria for exercising t...

6. BORA Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...8 For example, Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 at [48]; Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3 at [43], [44]; Charkaoui [2004] 3 F.C.R. 32 (F.C.) at [100], [101]; R. v. Shayler, [2002] 2 All E.R. 477 (H.L.); Murray v. United Kingdom (1995), 19 EHRR 193 (E.C.H.R.) at [58]. 9 See Klass v Germany (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214 and subsequent decisions. 10 (1976) AJHR A.4A. 11 See Zaoui v Attorney-General (

7. [2020] NZEnvC 106 Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a rua v Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 9.1 MB]

   ...evidence was unsworn and yet to be heard by the Court. Rangitane referred to provisions of the District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 setting out the basis on which the public might access Court documents, including rr8(1), 8(3), 10(1) and 11-18. [11] Rangitane contended that the Kahungunu waiver application relied on Court documents obtained without the leave of the Court and that the party to the proceedings who/which had access to the documents and provided them to...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v RDM [2015] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...engage further with the practitioner before renouncing its executorship. The Tribunal finds that the course of correspondence from the practitioner was not misleading or wrong. The practitioner met his professional obligations as required by Rules 1.01 and 1.08 of the New Zealand Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors (2004) Seventh Edition. [26] Arising out of these same matters, the Committee alleged that even if the practitioner’s correspondenc...

9. [2020] NZEnvC 201 Auckland Council v Noe [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...TP06-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile and amosite TP07-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile TPOB-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile and amosite TP09-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile TP10-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 N N/A TP11-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile TP12-1 Eurofins Solid 14/02/2020 0.0-0.1 y Chrysotile NOTES mbgl - metres below ground level 2020015 - Appendix C - Table 2 APPENDIX D...

10. ENV-2016-AKL-000270 Tram Lease Limited v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 2.9 MB]

    ...viewer to provide for a minimum 32.5m (above ground at the site) floor of the volcanic viewshaft. 100.4 Delete Rules 2.11.1.1 and 2.11.1.2 and the basic floor area ratio and bonus floor area controls. Site 26: Other sites: (Maps 26A to 26I) 101 Other sites where similar decisions are sought regarding the general amendments listed in Appendix D include: