Search Results

1. [2021] NZIACDT 26 - RH v Ji - Sanctions (23 December 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...6 Labour costs $5,670.00 Lost wages $45,745.00 Lost reputation/credibility with Immigration NZ $5,000.00 [22] An explanation for these losses and expenses was provided by the complainant: (1) The legal fees of $9,372.50 were for the appeal against Immigration NZ’s letter of 27 May 2020 questioning her credibility. (2) The further legal fees of $625.03 were for consultations regarding the investigation of Mr Ji. (3) The labour costs of $5,670 were for the time of the c...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 DM legal submissions [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...superior authority to the effect that s 104D must come first in the sequence. 4.2 In Arrigato Investments Ltd v Auckland Regional Council31, after reciting the alternative requirements of (then) s 105(2A), which it described as gateways, the Court of Appeal observed: Unless an application for a non-complying activity can pass through one or other of the two gateways, it will fail at the outset. If it does pass through either gateway, the consent authority must then have regard to...

3. [2021] NZREADT 28 - New Zealand LJ International Limited & Zeng (15 June 2021) [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...Committee’s costs. The payment must be made to the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [93] 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 N O’Connor Member _______________...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 12 A Labour Inspector v Daleson Investment Ltd [pdf, 376 KB]

   ...Foods v Mac Motors Ltd, Ngati Hurungaterangi v Ngati Wahiao, and Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd.24 [56] At its most fundamental level, the duty to give adequate reasons is a function of due process and therefore justice. As the Court of Appeal observed in Ngati Wahiao, reasons are the articulation of the logical process employed by the decision maker, and serve to concentrate the mind. The ultimate decision is likely to be soundly based if a reasoned approach is brought to...

5. CAC306 v Zhou & Anor [2015] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...penalty. We direct the Registrar to arrange a Directions Hearing between our Chairperson and the parties to timetable dealing with penalty in the usual way. [51] 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 ______________________________ Ms...

6. BORA Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...the view that new section 103(1B) does not appear to be prima facie inconsistent with section 27(1) because we do not consider that the decision to suspend the payment is a "determination" for the purposes of section 27(1). The Court of Appeal in Chisholm v Auckland City Council11 held that a determination for the purposes of section 27(1) must be of an adjudicative character. The decision of the Commissioner to temporarily suspend the payment in this context is not adjudicat...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 218 New Zealand Nurses Organisation v Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...disclosure of potentially relevant documents and their admissibility in evidence, he also said that, when it comes to assessing relevance, it is necessary to consider the context of “overbreadth and oppressive effect”. [95] The Court of Appeal in Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd v Postles noted that the concept of relevance should not be looked at narrowly, albeit the concept can never be divorced from the issues raised by the pleadings.19 A possibly more restric...

8. Pirika v Mita - The Estate of Nepia Enoka Mita [2014] Chief Judge's MB 685 (2014 CJ 685) [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...burden of proof is on the Applicant to rebut the two presumptions above; and 1 Tau v Nga Whānau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section 1X Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167); Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209). 2 At [15]. 2014 Chief Judge’s MB 695  As a matter of public interest, it is necessary for the Chief Judge to uph...

9. TG v Standards Committee LCRO 205/2014 (30 June 2014) [pdf, 359 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her 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. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [28] Mr TG attended a review hearing in [City] on 10 June...

10. CAC10056 v Ferguson [2013] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 83 KB]

    ...If the Defendant declines to make submissions on penalty or rests on written submissions we shall deal with that issue when and as we think appropriate. [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 J Robson Member ______________________________ Mr J Ga...