4505 items matching your search terms
...requirement imposed under s 114(2). 26 See too Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (2009) 6 NZELR 463 at [28]. Compare Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 462 at [63]. 27 Section 101(ab); Creedy at [39]. 28 Section 101(a), (b). See too, for example, Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [2008] ERNZ 139 at [40], [58]. [41] Ultimately, the issue of whether an employee has done enough t...
...in size fit countryside living some are immediate neighbours others directly across the road which I understand will come under Countryside Living. The immediately neighbouring properties on Clevedon Kawakawa Road are Nos 69 of 1.35 Ha 84 2.61Ha 101 2 Ha and Immediately across the road Nos 84 2.61Ha 84A 2.5 Ha 86A 2.29 Ha and 88 8018 M2 Also on McNicol road Nos 9 3.89 Ha 12 Mcnicol (Immediate Neighbour) 1096 M2 and 90 McNicol an Immediate Neighbour of 20 Ha Which has been confirmed to...
...legal test as follows: 8 7 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203. 8 Waaka v Harrison – Poike 14 (2015) 101 Waikato Maniapoto MB 216 (101 WMN 216) at [26]. 138 Waiariki MB 143 First, there must be an assessment of the trustees’ performance taking into account an assessment of the standard duties and the special nature of Māori land trust...
...laboratory analysis. 27. ‘Oral fluid screening test’ is defined in the Bill as a test that is carried out by means of an oral fluid screening device. The screening devices are not specified in the Bill 6 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 7 At [161]. 8 Cropp v Judicial Committee [2008] 3 NZLR 744 at [33]; Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [162]. 9 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [172] per Blanchard J. 5 WE...
...and subsequently, Mr Halse’s primary submission became that his application for judicial review cannot be struck out because the Authority has not filed a statement of defence.19 [24] In respect of his primary submission, Mr Halse relies on s 10(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. That subsection provides that a respondent to an application for judicial review must file a statement of defence unless otherwise directed by a Judge under s 14. To support his argument, M...
...(ENV-2020- AKL-96); (o) DairyNZ Ltd v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-97); (p) Wairakei Pastoral Ltd v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-98); (q) Beef & Lamb NZ Ltd v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-99); (r) Auckland Waikato and Eastern Fish and Game Council v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-101); (s) Federated Farmers of NZ Inc v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL- 102); (t) Landcorp Farming Ltd v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL-147); (u) Pukekohe Vegetable Growers Assn v WRC (ENV-2020- AKL-148); and (v) Lochiel Farmlands Limited v WRC (ENV-2020-AKL- 1...
...2 years continuous residence in NZ Article 8 has no bearing on her case. Article 10 – rate of New Zealand [Supported Living Payment] in Australia [44] Article 10 of the Order introduces further qualifications to the receipt of SLPO. Article 10.1 provides a formula for calculating an Australian resident’s entitlement to SLP. The formula uses the concept of ‘working age residence in New Zealand’, defined in Article 5.5 of the Order as: … a period of residence between the...
...writing on the principal aspects of client service, including the basis on which the fees will be charged. (iv) Whether Mr ZC breached rule 9 … by charging fees that were unfair and unreasonable. (v) Whether Mr ZC breached rule 3.1 and/or rule 10.1 … by failing to treat his clients and/or vendor’s lawyer with respect and courtesy, and by being dishonest. The Standards Committee determination [16] The Standards Committee determined to take no further action on any of the c...
...Pecuniary penalties are due [16] The parties agree that pecuniary penalties are properly payable by the defendants, and there is a great deal of commonality in the approach that they say 8 GF v Comptroller, New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, [2023] ERNZ 409 at [162]. ought to be adopted. There is a vast difference in view, however, as to the appropriate level of penalties.9 [17] The purposes of penalties are:10 (a) to punish those who breach minimum emp...
...adherents of the Ratana Movement, not being beneficial owners of land vested in the Board, or, where the said President is not a beneficial owner, two such 1 356 Aotea MB 282 (356 AOT 282) 2 101 Whanganui MB 342-343 (101 WG 342-343) 3 Māori Purposes Act 1941, s 14(3) 361 Aotea MB 77 adherents, who shall be nominated by other adherents of the Movement who are not beneficial owners: (d) Two officers of the Public Se...