Search Results

1. BORA Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...[123]. 7 Ibid. 8 Cooper v Attorney-General [1996] 3 NZLR 480, 484. a decision to recommend an Order without proper consultation, pass a resolution to disallow that Order.9 31. On balance, we therefore consider that the restriction on appeal rights in judicial review proceedings in cl 22 means the right to judicial review is impaired no more than reasonably necessary to achieve the objective. Is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective? 32. In consider...

2. [2020] NZREADT 36 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 v Bright (24 August 2020) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...questions. [25] Accordingly, the Tribunal will not direct that Mr Bright is not permitted to cross- examine the complainant. [26] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _______________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson _______________ Mr G Denley Member _____...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 101 McNabb v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...8 JRT v RAC [2012] NZFC 1927 at [37]. 9 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200. 10 Hayne, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago v ASG [2014] NZEmpC 208, [2014] ERNZ 562 at [37]-[38]. This was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court: [2016] NZCA 203, [2016] 3 NZLR 289, (2016) 15 NZELR 1 at [43]; [2017] NZSC 59, [2017] 1 NZLR 777, [2017] ERNZ 208 at [79]-[80]. 11 Director-General of Social Welfare v Christchurch Press Company Ltd HC Christch

4. Koroi Piri Paki Whānau Trust – Punakitere 2A1B (2015) 112 Taitokerau MB 51 (112 TTK 51) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...for partition having regard to the nature and importance of the matter. 7 Bhana v Paniora – Wairau North 1B2C (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 139 (69 TTK 139) at [46]. 8 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa Block (2011) 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428). This case concerned an application for partition, refer s 288(2)(b) ibid. 112 Taitokerau 57 owner supports the application. Together those in support hold 29.4% of the shares in the block. [30] As such, only a mino...

5. BORA Limitation Bill [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...instances; and 2.3 Introduces a “longstop period” of 15 years beyond which exceptions to the general limitation periods will not normally be available. Application of limitation period to claims under the Bill of Rights Act 3. The Court of Appeal held in Sugrue (PF) Ltd v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 207 that the limitation provisions in s 4(1) of the current Limitation Act did not encompass such claims, although the Court did indicate that delay in pursuing a claim was a factor...

6. LCRO 18/2017 LK v NM [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...in that they failed to particularise the substance of Mr LK’s objection to the decision. [15] Mr LK’s application is reflective of applications commonly filed in the criminal jurisdiction, where lawyers initially identify as their grounds of appeal, complaint that the Court has erred in fact or law, or failed to take into account relevant considerations. 4 [16] Whilst that approach may provide lawyers working in the criminal jurisdiction, with opportunity and time to reflect...

7. Marine and Costal Area - Customary marine title group planning document [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...documents must follow the process set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA and meet the requirements in Part 5 of the RMA (section 93(9)). This ensures that any alterations in a proposed regional document are subject to public submissions and potentially, appeal. It also means that all relevant matters are weighed and balanced in the process, including costs and benefits identified through the section 32 analysis and the provisions of Part 2. Is it possible for no alterations to be made to a r...

8. Wikiriwhi v Houpapa - Hurakia Trust (2013) 85 Waiariki MB 107 (85 WAR 107) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...abilities of all the trustees and submitted that all trustees should be required to attend trustee training. Legal Principles [16] The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington) the Court of Appeal confirmed that this Court has 85 Waiariki MB 111 extensive supervisory powers in relation to trusts. Blanchard J noted at pp 9-10 that the Maori Land Court: “…is expressly given in s237 in respect of any trust to...

9. Kurei v Shaw - Waioeka Lot 435 (2022) 281 Waiariki MB 60 (281 WAR 60) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...wood, or any flax, tree ferns, sand, topsoil, metal, minerals, or other substances whether usually quarried or mined or not, on or from any Maori land; 6 Flight v Fletcher – Wairarapa 1D 2B 3B [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 96 (2017 APPEAL 96), at [37]. 281 Waiariki MB 65 … [19] Donaldson v Hemi summarised the principles regarding permanent injunctions:7 (a) A permanent injunction may be granted pursuant to s 19(1)(a) of the Act where a trespass has been m...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 95 Tourism Holdings Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 351 KB]

    ...challenged. There would be an associated delay and additional cost arising from participating in an Authority investigation and, if a challenge followed, in a proceeding before the Court. [26] The parties acknowledged they would lose a right of appeal if the proceeding was removed to the Court but they were aware of that consequence. It is an inevitable part of including an ability to seek special leave. [27] Tourism Holdings has satisfied the test in s 178(3) for removal of the m...