Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 47 Singh v Trustees of the Wellington Rudolf Steiner Kindergarten Trust [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...the mediator signs the agreed terms of settlement: 1 The settlement is final and binding and enforceable by us; 2 Except for enforcement purposes, neither of us may seek to bring those terms before the Authority or Court whether by action, appeal and application for review or otherwise; 3 The terms of the settlement cannot be cancelled under s 7 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979; 4 That s 149(4) provides that a person who breaches an agreed term of settlement to which (...

2. Oneroa v Kerehoma - Okahukura 8M 2C 2A 2A (2019) 401 Aotea MB 35 (401 AOT 35) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or [16] There is no express mention in s 222 of specific disqualifying factors, such as criminal convictions, for a nominated trustee. The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees. In that case the Court confirmed that, invariably, the views of the owners will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying consideration...

3. Tupe Snr v Everton - Manunui No 1 4th Residue Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 334 Aotea MB 227 (334 AOT 227) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...out in s 73 must be satisfied, with the onus on the affected trustees to provide the necessary evidence and submissions. Further, while the Court can grant such relief, that remedy will not be given lightly. 25 [43] In Wong v Burt the Court of Appeal held that s 73 was not available when trustees had proceeded, with the knowledge that their actions had already been questioned as potentially being unlawful. 26 In such a situation, the Court stated, the proper course was to have...

4. Kim v Kim [2016] NZIACDT 56 (20 September 2016) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...complaint with potential monetary loss was the advice provided after Immigration New Zealand made an adverse decision regarding the complainant and her family’s migration. There is no evidence that the inadequacy of advice regarding rights of appeal, and the legal obligations to leave New Zealand resulted in monetary loss. The complainant has written and said that, at least until recently, her family have remained in New Zealand. It seems likely that they have taken independent advi...

5. SW v RD LCRO 2/2012 (24 September 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issues [14] Lawyers owe obligations according to a strict hierarch...

6. Motu v Rapihana - Pukepoto 8B15B3B Residue (2022) 256 Taitokerau MB 150 (256 TTK 150) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvey Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129. 3 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd v Credit House (Vic) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309 at 311. 256 Taitokerau MB 195 be brushed over lightly.4 In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction:5 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which the p...

7. O'Connor v Macdee McLennon Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...originally claimed were accepted as being in excess of the $25,000.00 per unit that usually applied. [29] Generally an award of $25,000 per unit for occupiers is made based on the decisions of William Young P and Baragwanath J in the Court of Appeal in O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 3, Mok v Bolderson, 4 and Cao v Auckland City Council 5. Accordingly, the appropriate joint award to the claimants for general damages is $25,000 for anxiety, disappointment, physical inconvenien...

8. Dovey Property Holdings Limited – Orokawa 3B Part Lot 8 DP41892 (2013) 57 Taitokerau MB 75 (57 TTK 75) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...than that for which the proceedings are properly designed and exist, or where the plaintiff in the proceedings is seeking some collateral advantage beyond what the law offers. [37] Counsel also brought my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Gilham v Browning, where May LJ noted: “There is a clear public interest, in addition to the interests of individual litigants, that litigation should be justly, speedily and economically conducted and to...

9. CAC20004 v Li & Ors [2015] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...particular defendants. The fines are to be paid within three months of the date of this decision to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington. 8 [40] 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 ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms...

10. LCRO 158/2020 SA v KC (27 May 2022) [pdf, 199 KB]

    ...audio-visual means on 12 May 2022. In attendance were S, Mr KC and Mr RB.9 Nature and scope of review [22] 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 invo...