Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 57 Smith v Attorney-General for Commissioner Of Police [pdf, 29 KB]

   ...delivered on 24 December 2009,1 Mr Smith’s personal grievances were not upheld. 1 WC29/09. [3] Following the principles for determining costs in this jurisdiction established by the Court of Appeal,2 the first question is to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred followed by a consideration of what would be a reasonable contribution in all the circumstances to those reasonably incurred costs. The Court retains a br...

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Persson [2024] NZLCDT 2 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...undertaken. [17] Ms Town for the Standards Committee refers us to the decision of Davidson 6 to support the proposition that only suspension will provide a satisfactory response to offending at this level. In that case, Mr Davidson was suspended on appeal for a period of nine months. By way of comparison, the nature of the offending was different and, in that case, Mr Davidson had been sentenced to nine months home detention, 200 hours of community work and reparation of $500,000....

3. [2013] NZEmpC 214 South Pacific Ltd v Tian [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Regulation 6(2)(a)(ii). 4 EMC Auckland AC15/07, 27 March 2007. overall interests of justice, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before it. The interests of both parties must be weighed carefully. [7] As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 5 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that...

4. Ching v Regmi & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...concerning the liability of a builder, Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Limited3 the High Court apportioned 80 per cent of liability to the building parties and 20 per cent to the Council. This apportionment reflects that made by the Court of Appeal in Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson.4 In Todd on Torts the author notes the generally accepted allocation of responsibility between builder and Council as 80 percent/20 percent. I accept Ms Harrison’s submission and determin...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 15 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Walker [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...it was said that: 5 In applications of this kind it is necessary carefully to weigh all of the factors in the balance between the right of a successful litigant to have the fruits of a judgment and the need to preserve the position in case the appeal is successful. Often it is possible to secure an intermediate position by conditions or undertakings and each case must be determined on its own circumstances. Discussion [17] I consider the following matters to be relevant to t...

6. [2008] NZEmpC CC 14/08 PGG Wrightson Ltd v Jary [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...given a wide meaning – see for example the decisions of this Court in Medic Corporation Ltd v Barrett [1992] 3 ERNZ 523 and Waikato Rugby Union (Inc) v New Zealand Rugby Football Union (Inc) [2002] 1 ERNZ 752 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand v Gray [1996] 1 ERNZ 48. In B D M Grange Ltd v Parker [2005] ERNZ 343, however, a full Court of the High Court expressed the view in paragraph [66] of the decision that: …“rela...

7. [2019] NZEnvC 031 West Coast Regional Council v Westland District Council [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...independent peer review both of the initial application and the further information received; (c) since 21 December written approvals have been obtained from all parties; (d) all consents applied for were granted on 21 January 2019; and (e) the appeal period expires 15 working days after the decision is received by the parties, at the earliest 12 February 2019. Discussion [7] While the court is disappointed to have before it a further application to amend the enforcement orders,...

8. Plant Variety Rights [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...Māori-Crown partnership; a right that arises from the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty creates a basis for civil government, based on protections and acknowledgement of Māori rights and interests within New Zealand’s shared citizenry.10 The Court of Appeal has also commented on this right in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General.11 The Court said that “[t]he duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and w...

9. CAC 20003 v Jhagroo [2014] NZREADT 8 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...Assessment Committee of the Authority determined to take no further action on a complaint against Mr Jhagroo (“the licensee”) from Sylvester and Tafadzwa Kamhara (“the complainants”) as prospective property purchasers. However, the latter appealed successfully to us against that decision to take no action and we directed that a charge should be laid by the Authority; refer Kamhara v REAA [2012] NZREADT 9. [2] Mr Jhagroo now faces two charges of misconduct under ss 73(a) and...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 082 NSK Farming Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

    NSK FARMING LTD v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 082 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN NSK FARMING LIMITED (ENV-2021-CHC-000021) Appellant/ Applicant AND CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Court: Judge L J Semple sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Hearing: In chambers at Wellington Last case event: 9...