Search Results

1. Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency 2023 NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19; and [21.2] Is not a justified limit under NZBORA, s 5. [22] The test for what amounts to a limit on the right to be free from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19 is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson.8 That test requires Mr Emet to prove the following in this case: [22.1] Firstly, that NZTA’s actions amount to differential treatment between him and those in an analogous or comparable situation on...

2. Audit Summary Report 2016-2017 [pdf, 433 KB]

   ...provided. Client communication is a similar area of difference between high and low rated files. Auditors expected reporting to the client to be completed after each event, and copies of signed instructions to be kept on file. For criminal files, appeal opportunities were expected in final reporting letters. While there are times where it is inappropriate to contain this information in writing, auditors were concerned that they were often required to guess if any communication had occur...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 085 Lee & Rochwalski v Buller District Council [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...Regional Council in 2010.14 The decision granting the resource consent (including any conditions of that consent) will be recognised as valid until it is set aside or amended by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 While the Environment Court hears appeals against decisions granting resource consents, the court does not have an inherent power to review the decision of the Regional Council to grant a water permit. Given the above, I decline to issue the summons sought. Report w...

4. [2012] NZEmpC 95 Strachan v Moodie [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...claim is also, however, to compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for non-economic loss. That is a remedy for a personal grievance that I now address. [128] The plaintiff seeks compensation of $30,000, a sum described by the Court of Appeal in 1995 as “a very high figure”: Trust Bank Wellington Ltd v Lavery. 10 That was, however, more than 15 years ago and other cases have established broader benchmarks since then. For example, in the constructive dismissal case o...

5. Warrington - Hopa Te Piki (2011) 2011 Chief Judge's MB 325 (2011 CJ 325) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...and 1905 are not relevant to the present proceedings. 2011 Chief Judge‟s MB 331 [22] In summary, perhaps the most apposite summary of the apparent circularity of succession legislation applying to Māori can be found in the Court of Appeal judgement Whittaker v The Māori Land Court (1997) 15 FRNZ 51 where it noted: “Successively there were periods when the parent/child relationship between Meriana and Ngawini was recognised by law (1892-1901), was recognised by...

6. Tahata v Tahata - Proprietors of Ngāwhakatutu A1A (2015) 49 Tairawhiti MB 251 (49 TRW 251) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...flaws amount to unsatisfactory performance. [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 Maori 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] Wh...

7. Hassan v Woodcock - Manukau E2B1 (Rangikohu Marae) (2023) 262 Taitokerau MB 164 (262 TTK 164) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...succeed. [26] New Zealand courts have also adopted this reasoning, emphasising that an assessment of whether or not a serious question to be tried in fact existed could not be brushed over lightly.13 In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction:14 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...

8. LCRO 43/2020 SL v DN (29 September 2021) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...the Standards Committee file and all material lodged in conjunction with this review. Scope of review [47] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:18 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 invol...

9. BD v EG LCRO 374/2013 & 376/2013 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...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 where she considers appropriate. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion 2 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [41]. 7 as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investiga...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Grewal, Preet & Co Real Estate Limited, Voordouw and Mason [2018] NZREADT 70 [pdf, 215 KB]

    ...Voordouw Mason - penalty [62] We do not consider it necessary, in either case, to make an order as to further education. [63] 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...