Search Results

1. Roos v Wang [2010] NZWHT Auckland 10 [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...misstatement has always been whether the defendant assumed responsibility for his or her words and whether the other party relied on the statement (see Attorney-General v Carter)6. In Rolls-Royce New Zealand Ltd v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd,7 the Court of Appeal held that the conventional two stage test of negligence is to be applied in every case. In the case of negligent misstatement the proximity inquiry (i.e. the first step) will generally focus on the “interdependent concepts...

2. LCRO 4/2021 RQ v WJ (9 February 2022) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Service [16] The role of this Office is to carry out a review of Standards Committee determinations. [17] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involv...

3. 2022-03-18 ORC - Opening Submissions [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...purpose of—: (i) Soil conservation: (ii) The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in water bodies and coastal water: 30 The leading case on the overlap of controls between regional councils and district councils is the Court of Appeal decision in Canterbury Regional Council v Banks Peninsula District Council.8 31 This case was a declaratory proceeding concerning whether the control of land for the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards is within the power...

4. Solomon - Manukau Lands Trust (2018) 51 Te Waipounamu MB 40 (51 TWP 40) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...The Court has power to add, reduce, or replace trustees per s 239 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Section 222(2) of the Act sets out the relevant factors when appointing trustees. [10] I adopt the principles which were set out by the Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana:2 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In considering those issues, the Co...

5. Director of Proceedings v Crampton (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...Police (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 31. 5 [12.4] On the other hand, understanding and compassion are equally important. See Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 and Andrews v Commissioner of Police (Costs) [2014] NZHRRT 31 upheld on appeal in Commissioner of Police v Andrews [2015] NZHC 745 at [65], [68] and [73] to [74]. Discussion [13] Were Mr Crampton and his wife in better health the Director’s application for costs would have been hard to resist. There is no...

6. Trustees of Aata Paora Keretene Ahu Whenua Trust v Cherrington - Motatau 3B2B3 (2015) 102 Taitokerau MB 43 (102 TTK 43) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...6 Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvey Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129. 7 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309. 8 Eriwata v Trustees of Waitara SD S6 and 91 Land Trust – Waitara SD s5 and 91 Land Trust (2005) 15 Aotea Appeal MB 192 (15 WGAP 192). 9 36 Kaikohe MB 247 (36 KH 247). 102 Taitokerau MB 47 newspaper. At that meeting a resolution was passed by the owners in attendance directing the trustees to file the current applications. [19] As su...

7. Auckland District Law Society v Parlane [2010] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...the profession in terms of its reputation and integrity. [25] Mr Parlane has a previous disciplinary record. Mr Parlane attempted to explain it away on the basis that the earlier disciplinary decisions were wrong, or that he only withdrew his appeals relating to findings against him in respect of 1 Section 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 6 those charges because he did not want to prolong matters. The matters occurred some...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 108 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...no other purposes: (b) if copies of any documents have been made available by any party,— (i) those copies must be returned to that party within 28 clear days after the conclusion of the proceedings or after the conclusion of any related appeal, whichever is the later; and (ii) copies of any of those copies must not be retained by the party to whom those copies were made available: (c) the information contained in any document so disclosed but not used in evidence in t...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 100 Liu v South Pacific Timber (1990) Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...the same or similar factual allegations, but that went against the applicant in the Authority. Although, if leave is granted, the applicant may proceed with a clean slate to establish his case, the challenge is generally in the nature of an appeal, certainly as far as this application for leave and consideration of merits is concerned. [8] In Stevenson v Hato Paora College Trust Board 3 Judge Shaw described this test as being “the absence of any realistic prospect of success...

10. LAT - Practice note - 2011 [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...document, it will do so by notice in writing. [5.5] Any person who has provided original documents to the Tribunal may request their return. Such requests will be considered after the Tribunal’s decision is delivered and the time limited for appeal or judicial review has expired. [5.6] The Tribunal will provide a copy of the application for review, the submissions and all supporting materials to the Commissioner (s 54(c)). The Commissioner is to file submissions and relevant d...