Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 137 Independent Prosperity Ltd v Huang [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...application was based on undue hardship to the company, not concerns about an ability to recoup money paid to Ms Huang if the challenge succeeds. [23] This factor points away from granting a stay. Brought in good faith? [24] Mr Nguy submitted that the appeal was brought in good faith. He emphasised that the company had cooperated in the Authority investigation and in the timetabling for the challenge so that it can be disposed of expeditiously. [25] I accept that the challenge...

2. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...scope of review [57] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:6 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...

3. Goldsmith - Matata Parish 63Z (2021) 263 Waiariki MB 214 (263 WAR 214) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust;8 and Rudd v Former Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust Trustees.9 [14] I adopt the reasonings set out in these judgments. 6 Te Whata v Paku - Akura Lands Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) 7 Hall v Opepe Farm Trust – Opepe Farm Trust (2009) 90 Taupo MB 189 (90 TPO 189) 8 Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2012) 18 Tākitimu MB 75 (18 TKT 75) 9 Rudd v Former Horowhenua 11 Part Reservation Trust Trustee...

4. BORA Wanganui District Council Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...to a limited degree. 9 See, for example Chalifoux v New Caney Independent School District 976 F. Supp. 659 (1997). 10 In applying section 5, we have had regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754; as well as the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisi...

5. CAC 304 v Morris [2016] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...$6,000 to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within one calendar month of this decision, and we also formally censure the defendant. [19] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms...

6. Denee [2011] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...occurred prior to the commencement of the Act. This was $2,000 and in addition it censured the practitioner and ordered the payment of costs of $3,230. The Standards Committee declined to publish the name of the practitioner. The complainant appealed the Standards Committee decision to the Legal Complaints Review Officer who, on 21 July 2010 gave a decision pursuant to sections 211(b) and 152(2) of the Act that the matter be referred to the Tribunal. Pursuant to section 212 char...

7. LCRO 161-2016 XS v VS [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Committee may, in its discretion, decide to take no action or, as the case may require, no further action, on any complaint if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee,— … (f) there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. [31] It is a little puzzling that Mr VS has chosen to pursue a re...

8. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (15 August 2013) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...reached the necessary threshold of the New Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal. The outcome sought was that the decision of the Committee be quashed, a determination made as to the facts and law, or deferring the matter until such time as the appeal was heard. These grounds were enlarged in an attached letter and in further correspondence, which altogether contained extensive submissions, particularly concerning the background to the allegations of bias. [12] The main grou...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 282 M & L Taylor Partnership v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 7.4 MB]

   M & L TAYLOR PARTNERSHIP V QLDC – CONSENT DETERMINATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 282 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN M & L TAYLOR PARTNERSHIP (ENV-2023-CHC-43) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge P A Steven – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christchurch...

10. [2007] NZEmpC CC 28/07 B & D Doors Ltd v Hamilton [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...those prevailing prior to the enactment of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 and, in particular, the enactment of what is now s103A of the principal Act. [6] The relevant principles were conveniently summarised by the Court of Appeal in W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448. The onus is on the employer to justify the dismissal. What the employer must do is to satisfy the Court that the decision to dismiss was one which a reasonable and fair employer...