Search Results

1. Wider-stakeholders-feedback-summary.pdf [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...considered the draft code and the process of drafting it a failure because they felt the code was watered down and lacks tangible enforcement mechanisms. 10. Most submitters thought that the voluntary, self-regulating nature of the draft code: 10.1. makes it ineffective with no enforcement or accountability, and does nothing to address areas of significant public concern; 10.2. does not promote public trust in the system; 10.3. undermines democracy and encourages corruption; 10....

2. District-Court-Electronic-Filing-Amendment-Rules-2023.pdf [pdf, 368 KB]

   ...considered and agreed it would be desirable to permanently enable electronic filing provisions within the District Court Rules 2014. The Committee has agreed these provisions should be consistent with rule 5.1A and rule 5.1B of the High Court Rules 2016: 10.1 Rule 5.1A: allows for documents to be filed electronically (and allows a Judge or Associate Judge to require that documents be filed electronically in emergencies), including provision for electronic signatures. An electronic addre...

3. E37 Gemma Chuah - Stormwater - EIC - Council [pdf, 767 KB]

   ...incorporated into the revised set of conditions attached to Nicola Broadbent’s planning evidence for the Council – I consider that proposed conditions 136 to 150 appropriately deal with stormwater and ITA-related matters. 10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1 In relation to ITAs the implementation of the proposed structural and procedural controls and careful ongoing management of the bases will ensure that any effects on the environment as a result of the activities on the bases will be suit...

4. Baker v High Court (Costs) [2022] NZHRRT 4 [pdf, 696 KB]

   ...defendants (the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Attorney-General) now apply for an award of $3,000 as a reasonable contribution towards their costs. Their actual costs before the Tribunal totalled $5,584.55 (excl GST) with disbursements of $10.14 (excl GST). Costs and disbursements in line with the High Court Rules on a 1B basis would amount to $4,462.14. [3] The application is opposed by the plaintiff. [4] By Minute dated 21 December 2021 the Chairperson gave timetable direct...

5. Hunia v Skerrett-White - Kawerau A8 D Block [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 50 (2017 APPEAL 50) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...this test was applied in Shaw – Tauwhare Te Ngare (although not for the purpose of appeal). 10 6 Hau v Foy & Ors – Te Kaha 20B (1998) 1 Waiariki Appellate Court MB 94 (1 AP 94). 7 At 101. 8 Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547. 9 In Re Marangairoa A29 and Marangairoa A31 Inc (1962) 28 Gisborne ACMB 155 (28 APGS 155); Williams v Williams – Matauri 2F2B (1991) 3 Taitokerau Appellate MB 20 (3 A...

6. Mullane v Attorney-General (Request for Documents) [2020] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 621 KB]

   ...submissions [10] By memorandum dated 20 March 2020 counsel for the Police advised the Tribunal that the Attorney-General would abide the decision of the Tribunal on Mr Mullane’s application but offered the following comments by way of assistance: [10.1] The order made by the Tribunal at [117] of its decision prohibiting search of the Tribunal file and directing that Mr Mullane and the Police be notified of any request to search the file was sufficient to protect the evidence on the Tr...

7. Rua - Kotipu 2 (2003) 81 Ōpōtiki MB 35 (81 OPO 35) [pdf, 429 KB]

   ...trustees. The issue for the Court is whether I can remove the trustees and replace them with the Maori Trustee. BACKGROUND Kotipu 2 is a block of Maori freehold land situated on the Matahi Valley Road, near the village of Waimana. (See 89 Whakatane MB 101 & 86 Whakatane MB 261-262) The block comprises 42.8966 hectares and is subject to an ahu whenua trust, first constituted in 1991 when three trustees were appointed to administer the block. (See 84 Whakatane MB 2-3) The trustees ap...

8. Juan v Ramos [2015] NZIACDT 48 (07 May 2015) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Code. The responses [9] The complainant did not file a statement of reply, and was not required to do so if he agreed with the terms of the Statement of Complaint. [10] Ms Ramos filed a statement of reply. The key elements in her response were: [10.1] She did not enter into an agreement for the provision of professional services. This was a deliberate choice after presenting her terms of engagement and fees. The complainant could not afford to engage her. 4 [10.2] Ms R...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 51 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...would abide the decision of the Court. It also noted that, as the decision maker that is named in the judicial review under s 9(3) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, its filing of a statement of defence is governed by s 10(2), rather than s 10(1), of that Act which provides a discretion, not an obligation, to file a statement of defence. [11] Ms Taylor, counsel for the Authority appeared at the hearing to provide clarification in relation to its position for the assistance of th...

10. E46 Christiaan Moss - Navigation - EIC - Council [pdf, 754 KB]

    ...evidence, which I support (and which I note is reflected in the revised set of conditions attached to Ms Broadbent’s planning evidence as Attachment A). 9.5 Subject to that amendment, I am content with the Proposed Conditions. 10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1 Any navigation and safety concerns can be appropriately managed if the Applicant adheres to the Proposed Conditions as discussed in section 9 above. In particular, I support Proposed Conditions 46A and 46B requiring the preparation...