Search Results

1. Zhong v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 32 [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...bedroom which is enclosed.62 [80] In Scandle v Far North District Council63 the High Court was required to consider whether negligence by a council was causative of loss. Justice Duffy followed the two stage inquiry applied by the Court of Appeal in ACC v Ambros.64 The first step is a factual assessment to determine whether the loss would have arisen without the defendant‟s conduct and the second step considers causation in the legal sense. This inquiry requires an assessm...

2. 2019 Directory of Official Information V-Z [pdf, 608 KB]

   ...eligible qualifying service. The Panel comprises an employee of the New Zealand Defence Force and a representative of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The Minister for Veterans appoints the: Veterans’ Entitlements Appeal Board which determines appeals of review decisions veterans and other claimants disagree with. This board consists of not more than four members of which one must be a lawyer who has at least seven years standing, and two must be med...

3. Sell v Harris [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...Melanie’s room which is at the north eastern corner. Mrs Freestone’s evidence that the pile of earth had been against the house from the time the framing was constructed is not credible. Page 30 The Legal Position [91] The Court of Appeal in Riddell v Porteous [1991] 1 NZLR 1, concluded that the fact that owners of a property engaged various trades on a labour-only basis did not in itself make them head- contractors. In addition, it concluded that owners not giv...

4. Human-Rights-Commission-R-v-Lincolnshire-Coroner.pdf [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...by neglect 83. Mr Fitzgerald was, in our judgment, on weaker ground when he criticised the coroner's approach to a possible verdict incorporating a finding of neglect. In R v North Humberside Coroner, ex parte Jamieson[1995] QB 1 the Court of Appeal resolved a lot of the uncertainties surrounding the availability of this verdict, and it would be prudent to approach with care any pre- 1995 judgments in the Divisional Court, to some of which Mr Fitzgerald drew our attention, to the extent...

5. Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Analysis of Replacement Regimes [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...within the foreshore and seabed area; the jurisdiction of the High Court and Māori Land Court over the public foreshore and seabed; and the treatment of customary rights and interests. 7 The 2004 Act was, in part, a response to the Court of Appeal’s decision Attorney- General v Ngāti Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) (the Ngāti Apa decision) which decided, amongst other things, that: customary title over the foreshore and seabed, if any, had not necessarily been extinguished by cert...

6. O'Connell & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...September 2010. 6 Askin v Knox [1989] 1 NZLR 248 (CA). Page | 20 Council officer’s conduct will be judged against the knowledge and practice at the time at which the negligent act or omission was said to take place. [79] The Court of Appeal in Byron Avenue7 accepted that the Council owed a duty of care in its inspections even before the final inspection issuing a Code Compliance Certificate. It stated: [59] I consider that the Hamlin principle imposes on councils i...

7. Directory of Official Information 2019 V-Z [pdf, 775 KB]

   ...eligible qualifying service. The Panel comprises an employee of the New Zealand Defence Force and a representative of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The Minister for Veterans appoints the: Veterans’ Entitlements Appeal Board which determines appeals of review decisions veterans and other claimants disagree with. This board consists of not more than four members of which one must be a lawyer who has at least seven years standing, and two 4 mus...

8. King v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...21(h). Claustrophobia is undisputedly a disability for the purposes of the HRA. [11] What amounts to discrimination contrary to NZBORA, s 19 is not defined in the HRA but has been judicially determined. That test is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 (Atkinson) at [55], [109] and [135]–[136]: [11.1] First, there must be differential treatment or effects as between persons or groups in analogous or comparable s...

9. Witana v Tau - Omapere Taraire E (2019) 191 Taitokerau MB 1 (191 TTK 1) [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...for in the Act, the Trustee Act 1956 and the Reservation Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance. [19] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held:4 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of the bus...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 36 Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [pdf, 280 KB]

    ...the Environment, ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign [1996] 3 All ER 304 (QB). standard of neutrality, or appearance of neutrality, advocated for on behalf of the plaintiff applies in the disciplinary context. [47] As the Court of Appeal observed in Marlborough Girls’ College v Sutherland: 16 [24] This case highlights the problems of applying statements of principle of bias developed in relation to courts, tribunals and other bodies which operate independently...