Search Results

1. Proactive-release-20240715-CAB-Regulatory-Systems-Justice-Amendment-Bill_Final.pdf [pdf, 9.6 MB]

   ...in pai·agraph (3) of section 232. produce a wages and time record, as this a notice unless the employer has the would be consistent with the Authority's consent of the other pa1iies or the powers and avoid any delays because of an Authority. appeal. 28 IN CONFIDENCE Sarah Collins Cross-Out Sarah Collins Cross-Out IN CONFIDENCE No Status quo including problem and Proposed change Impacts opportunity Juries Act 1981 1.16. The Juries Act requires that a single jmy Amend the...

2. Sionetama - Puketapu E Māori Reservation (2021) 436 Aotea MB 273 (436 AOT 273) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...(5) For every trust 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. [29] Clarke v Karaitiana, a decision of the Court of Appeal, is a leading authority on the appointment of trustees.10 That Court confirmed that trust beneficiaries’ views are important considerations, along with the range of experience needed and the risk of conflicts: [51] The touchstone...

3. OIA-109743.pdf [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   ...use of electronic casebooks. Estimated completion: FY 2025/2026 11.2. Phase 2 – District Court Criminal, including Youth Court, and the remainder of District Court Civil. Estimated completion: FY 2026/2027 11.3. Phase 3 – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, Coroners Court, Environment Court, and the Disputes Tribunal. Estimated completion: FY 2027/2028. 12. The estimated completion dates will be confirmed in the updated Implementation Business Case (refer upcoming decisio...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 198 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...held to provide protection from disclosure of matters connected with bargaining. A similar view of reg 44(3)(c) was taken in Lloyd v Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (No 2).20 [58] Both decisions are not free from doubt, and the Court of Appeal has cautioned against extending categories of class privilege.21 [59] The Court in Coy considered reg 44(3)(c) and also drew on s 69 of the Evidence Act to reach a conclusion about whether certain medical evidence relating to the...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 194 Connor [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...[2] This is not the sort of case that this Court would normally deal with, given that it relates to restricted discretionary activities which are usually dealt with on a non- notified basis by Council or one of its commissioners and thus is non appealable to this Court. [3] It relates to the Special Character Area overlays in terms of the operative provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The Court’s decision in Eden-Epsom Residential Protection Society Incorporated v Auck...

6. [2020] NZREADT 18 - Hilliam [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...principles of ethics. Such evidence is to be provided to the Authority within 12 months of the date of this decision. [59] 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 _________________ Mr G Denley Member...

7. [2015] NZEnvC 066 Waiheke Marinas Limited [pdf, 572 KB]

   ...AO 18/93 2 See for instance Haslam v Selwyn DC (1993) 2 NZRMA 628; Mills v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2005] NZRMA 227; Coull v Christchurch City Council (Environment Court) Decision C077/06; Shell NZ Limited v Porirua City Council (Court of Appeal) CA 57/05 3 (2014) ELRNZ 29 at paragraph [42] Matiatia Direct Referral (Decision re out of scope) 5 reduction in the scale, intensity or character of a proposal will often be found to be within scope. [12] There IS nothing abou...

8. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...claims7. [26] In Hartley v Balemi8 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor9 considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.10 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in Trevor Ivory was not an element of every...

9. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...an inappropriate strategy on a number of levels. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that DG contrived a situation whereby he could make a complaint against BU. While DG says he sought to resolve the impasse by an appeal to BU’s sense of collegiality, DG could, and should, have done things differently. [53] DG knew he was acting on the instructions of a disgruntled client. There was no reason for DG to expose himself to the risk he took in laying...

10. Hamblyn v Auckland City Council [pdf, 53 KB]

    ...plans and that the bearer did not comply with the required standards. Having made those findings, Mr Vaughan must be held to have a degree of personal liability for actual construction defects. [46] Decisions from the High Court and Court of Appeal have all established that to be personally liable, a director needs to either assume some personal responsibility or needs to be directly involved in carrying out, supervising and/or controlling the defective work that has result...