Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 77 Poulter v Antipodean Growers Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...their own account. 6. Another matter which may assist in the determination of the issue is industry practice although this is far from determinative of the primary question. [21] Also, from the dissenting judgment of McGrath J in the Court of Appeal3 it can be concluded that ultimately it is necessary, having considered the formulaic approach adopted in the Employment Court in Bryson, to gain an overall impression of the underlying and true nature of the relationship between the p...

2. Data and Statistics Bill [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...requiring the Crown to prove the opposite; and, c. the penalty for the offence is proportionate to the importance of the Bill’s objective. Infringement offences 35. Although infringement offences do not result in a conviction11, the Court of Appeal in Henderson v Director, Land Transport New Zealand held that the rights in ss 24 and 25 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to minor offences dealt with under the infringement notice regime.12 36. Although we recognise this is not strictl...

3. Combined Owners and Residents of Apartments in Sheds 19 20 22 23 [pdf, 3.6 MB]

   ...rule E25,6,27, 12 The approach sought by the Submitter is supported by the As!:;essment, of Environmental Effects as this recognises that given the regional coastal provisions which form part of the AUP have been through the AUP process and no appeals an~ outstandi,ng that significant weight should be given, to these provisions and little or no weight should be given to the RCP, 13 The Marshall Day Report indicates that except for piling and concrete cutting all other construction a...

4. Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Post Consultation Decisions [pdf, 993 KB]

   ...14 59 The two options that involve the use of Courts require subsequent decisions to be made regarding the appropriate jurisdiction for the hearing of claims for recognition of customary interests, provisions relating to evidence and the appeal process. The table below provides a high level summary of analysis of the decisions required. The two options are the Māori Land Court or High Court and are set out below. Analysis/conclusions 60 Ove...

5. Brichris Holdings Limited v Irmac Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2012] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...removal application by the architect but recorded that the claimant, the party opposing removal, needed to establish causation. At adjudication the claim against the architect failed but the Tribunal declined his application for costs. On appeal the District Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the threshold for an award of costs under s91(1)(b) had not been met because the claimant failed to offer the necessary evidence of causation at hearing.17 Co...

6. BORA Securities Legislation Bill [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...penalty order and be liable for a fine under the relevant Act for the same conduct.[12] In respect of the civil liability provisions enabling compensation to be ordered in some instances, we draw your attention to the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in the leading case on 26(2), Daniels v Thompson[13] that made it clear that this section must be read as referring: Only to criminal proceedings relating to an offence against the law, for which the person has been tried. What is pr...

7. Smith - Pekapeka 2A1D2B (2021) 91 Tākitimu MB 145 (91 TKT 145) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...are also an insufficient ground for opposition as is concerns over how subsequent owners of land may have conducted themselves in terms of 6 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block VII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 Appeal 259) 7 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 (HC) 91 Tākitimu MB 152 Mr Nikora. Ms Cracknell should therefore provide a submission as to why she opposes the partition setting out clearly her grounds. To avoid doub...

8. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v A Practitioner [2020] NZLCDT 32 (13 October 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...practitioner in the Court Precincts when he was challenged by a security guard about his motorcycle helmet. [15] It is common ground that, on the day in question, the practitioner was at Court not for professional purposes, but in relation to an appeal in the High Court relating to family matters. It is also accepted that having regard to the outcome of those proceedings the practitioner “… would have been and likely presented as very distressed…”. On being asked for the c...

9. Deputy Registrar v Severne - Okahukura 8M2C2C2B (2017) 365 Aotea MB 174 (365 AOT 174) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...constituted under this Part of this Act the Court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [17] The leading authority on the appointment of trustees is the Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana where is was said: 1 [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 cons...

10. Timoti v Te Are - Torere 33 (2017) 171 Waiariki MB 83 (171 WAR 83) [pdf, 265 KB]

    ...5 165 Waiariki MB 139-151 (165 WAR 139-151). 6 170 Waiariki MB 195-211 (170 WAR 195-211). 7 Tatere v Te Aute Trust Board - Mangatainoka No 1B No 2C Tamaki No 2A2A (Balance) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 243 (2013 APPEAL 243). 171 Waiariki MB 86 [15] The applicant raises a further issue regarding a payment made by the Māori Trustee to Hoata Farms Ltd for work done on the block. The applicant submits that the work was not commissioned and th