Search Results

1. Austell v Somerset LCRO 76 / 2009 (2 September 2009) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...Standards Committee he replied by an email dated 4 March 2009. In that email he stated “I am not guilty of misconduct” and “in the event of a finding of misconduct…[the Committee ought] reserve any decision to publish until any rights of appeal by either party have been exhausted”. The issue of what guidance should be given to a lawyer who is the subject of a complaint was addressed in B v Canterbury District Law Society [2002] 3 NZLR 113 where at para [11] Randerson J st...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 71 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...recognising it may have been possible for Dr Sawyer to seek to amend them.6 [31] Duress is usually understood as the imposition of illegitimate pressure by threats that coerce a party to enter a contract: McIntyre v Nemesis.7 In McIntyre the Court of Appeal said that contracts procured by duress are voidable by the coerced party unless the agreement has been affirmed.8 [32] In discussing duress the Court said that, originally, it was restricted to threats of physical injury. Subse...

3. Ringwood v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...and care. The position remains however that under the Building Act, the breach of this duty by act or omission must occur within 10 years of proceedings being brought. [71] All three counsel referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Johnson v Watson.7 Again, this case concerned the tortious liability of a builder rather than a developer. In Johnson v Watson Tipping J stated that an act or omission occurs on a particular day and that the starting point of the s...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 20 Smith v Director General of the Ministry for Primary Industries [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...criticism is that Mr Blake was unable to make a decision about Mr X’s claim of self-defence while her decision, effectively, accepted it. [42] In Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd4 the Court of Appeal accepted a prima face case of disparity of treatment, leading to a dismissal, may be unjustifiable in the absence of an adequate explanation by the employer. Two Air New Zealand stewards were charged jointly with smuggling a video casse...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 032 Cabra Rural Developments Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 32 MB]

   ...[2021] NZEnvC O 3 2 the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA), and the Resource Management Act 1991, and the rural subdivision provisions of the in part proposed and in part Operative Auckland Unitary Plan, and appeals pursuantto s 156 oftheLGATPA CABRA RURAL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED FOREST HABITATS LIMITED KAREPIRO INVESTMENTS LIMITED MONOWAI PROPERTIES LIMITED RAH OP ARA FARMS LIMITED RAUHORI FORESTS LIMITED SH 16 LIMITED (ENV-2016-AKL-00...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 209 McLennan v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...determining whether these actions are sufficiently capable or blameworthy to reduce any award that might otherwise be made; 31 and determining whether these actions are “blameworthy” as a broad inquiry. (d) The majority of the Court of Appeal in Salt v Fell held that s 124 operates as a “contributory negligence” provision. 32 (e) Examples were given of blameworthy conduct that had required the reduction of remedies, including for breach of traffic regulations 33 a...

7. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – summary record 15th-17th reports (continued) [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...effective remedies for violations of rights contrary to the Convention. Treaty settlements were not considered temporary measures. 22. Turning to immigration issues, she said that the Government continued to consider that it was preferable for the appeal and review procedures in the Immigration Act to be the primary means of resolving disputes about individual immigration decisions, rather than creating a parallel resolution process. Without the procedural bar, there was a risk that appli...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 5A/07 Ali'imatafitafi v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...defendant, the plaintiff was dismissed on 17 December 2002 and the test for justification in s103A of the Employment Relations Act, which came into force on 1 December 2004, does not apply. Consequently the test is that contained in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448, 457. The issue for the Court is whether the defendant has, on the balance of probabilities, discharged the onus of showing that the decision to dismiss the plaintiff...

9. Floyd v The Proprietors of Hauhungaroa 2C Block Incorporation Committee of Management - Hauhungaroa 2C Incorporation (2014) 325 Aotea MB 42 (325 AOT 42) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...of committee members was being considered: 10 [7] In our view unsatisfactory performance must be measured against the principles in the Act. They are contained in the preamble and section 2. [8] The key principles for the purposes of this appeal are that the Court should encourage: (a) retention of Māori land, in the hands of its owners; (b) the utilisation and development of that land; and (c) control of that land by the owners, through their representatives. [9] Whet...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

    ...Fendall was providing “regulated services”. Ms Dew’s analysis proceeded along the lines of the Tribunal’s analysis of this issue in Orlov at first instance. But it is to be noted that that reasoning was overturned by the High Court on appeal. [39] Ms Dew submitted that Orlov and Deliu were distinguishable in that “the conduct was directly connected to Mr Orlov and Mr Deliu’s provision of legal services to clients, their relationship with the courts and the judiciary a...