14134 items matching your search terms
...7 [2019] Chief Judge’s MB 587-607 (2018 CJ 707-718) 8 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 9 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 1175 Decision/Orders [18] Having regard to the above, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under s 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 at this stage. [19] The Case Manager is directed to provide
...ERNZ 388 at p 395, per Finnigan J. 12 [1994] 2 ERNZ 309. always just to allow an employee to submit a personal grievance because every time leave is refused a potential injustice is done. Mr Lloyd properly noted that the Court of Appeal in that case found that the Chief Judge went rather too far: see GFW Agri-Products v Gibson.13 I agree with Mr Lloyd that any considerations in balancing justice must necessarily be based on the evidence put before the Court. I still...
...Gilroy or Terence Mania Gilroy or Joseph Terence Gilroy - and succession orders made at 70 South Island MB 116 on 15/09/1988 - Application to the Chief Judge 45/93 Veronica Stanaway - Foster 1. Awaiting Administrative Action A20100011554 11/10/2010 Appeal 2010/14 - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) 58/93 Anaha Morehu 3. Awaiting Client Action or Information A20100011554 11/10/2010 Appeal 2010/14 - Whakapoungakau 24 (Tikitere Trust) 58/93 Eric Hodge 3. Awaiting Client Action or Information...
...Legal principles [87] The legal principles relating to constructive dismissal are well established and have been applied by this Court in a number of previous decisions. In Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd, 2 the Court of Appeal enunciated three non-exhaustive categories of constructive dismissal: Where the employee is given a choice of resignation or dismissal; Where the employer has followed a course of conduct with the deliberate and common purpose of c...
...by Ms Tafilipepe, we do not consider it necessary to make any orders as to completion of particular training courses. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ________________ Ms N Dangen Member ___________...
...circumstances, it would be inequitable to award sole ownership to Ms Urlich. They reiterate that it was their father who acquired the land and the house through the exchange order and this was their family home. [27] In Lankow v Rose, the Court of Appeal held that, in order to recognise a constructive trust, the claimant must show: 14 (a) Contributions, direct or indirect, to the property in question; (b) The expectation of an interest therein; (c) That such expectation i...
...process will, if it gives proper consideration to the evidence they provide: 9 • Conclude that proofs of debt provided to the High Court and to the company liquidator were incorrect. • Arrive at conclusion that a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld a statutory demand, should be overturned. • Arrive at a different view to that of the High Court when that Court, in a decision delivered on [Day Month Year], refused leave to Mr and Mrs AB to pursue their matters f...
...authority that the works do in fact comply with the Building Code. 35 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR, 896 at [912]-[913] and adopted by the Court of Appeal in Boat Park Ltd v Hutchinson [1999] 2 NZLR 74 (CA) at [81]-[82]. 56 [198] At [268] she said: ...that the meaning given to cl 14.2 has to be informed by the intention of the parties in entering into the contract...
...identified by the auditor as very likely not genuine. This gives Mr Marshall the benefit of the doubt regarding the remaining $6,708.09 of suspected expenses. [58] 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 ______________________________...
...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [81] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...