Search Results

1. MLC 2018 April National Panui [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...Aotea 164-165 and 90 Aotea 81-82 dated 30 April 1999 and 11 December 1998 - Application to Chief Judge A20180001438 58/93 Rae Beverly Adlam Matata Parish 39A 2A - and a charging order made at 176 Waiariki MB 226 on 30 November 2017 - Notice of Appeal A20180001563 45/93 Lindsay Katene Thomas Phillip Meads also known as Kereru Thomas Meads - and a succession order made at 33 Waikato- Maniapoto MB 299-303 on 06/12/2011 - Application to Chief Judge A20180001746 45/93 Alison Tupara- Katu...

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution: General Civil Cases [pdf, 675 KB]

   ...face-to-face interview was not possible, members of the judiciary were offered the option of a telephone interview. In total, interviews were completed with nineteen District Court Judges, eight High Court Judges, four Masters and one Court of Appeal Judge. One High Court Judge, three District Court Judges and one Master were unable to be interviewed within the research timetable due to other commitments. In addition to the individual interviews, the research team also spoke with the...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 188 Waitaki District Council [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...findings on the merits of any of the proposed provisions, including whether they satisfy relevant RMA requirements. Those matters are to be scrutinised through Sch 1 processes, including their opportunities for submission, further submission and appeal. [67] We acknowledge that bringing the proposed rules into immediate effect could impose costs and inconvenience on landowners and others seeking to subdivide, develop or use land. Potentially, that could be as a result of rules tha...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 157 Hall v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...grievance process is to allow parties to raise and discuss problems directly to help ensure that they are resolved quickly and successfully.7 There is no place for rigid formal procedures at this stage.8 On that note, the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal provides helpful comments in the context of a similar provision which is now repealed:9 … the need for parties to understand each other’s position before proceedings are launched (and the opportunity for resolution sh...

5. LCRO 208/2021 PK v GH (13 June 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...that she “was happy to withdraw” from any involvement with this review.21 Nature and scope of review [72] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 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 inv...

6. Directory of Official Information A-C [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...Consent Authorities • Physical Sciences • Medical Testing • Metrology and Calibration • Radiology Services. Chairpersons of each PAC are members of the Accreditation Advisory Committee (AAC). The AAC and/or the Council may adjudicate any appeals arising from IANZ accreditations. Records Records are maintained on client registrations, assessments, reports and correspondences. A directory of IANZ accreditations is maintained and made available for public viewing on www.ian...

7. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...the fifth amended statement of claim but interestingly, despite the extraordinary time spent on the documents, the drafters failed to correct an error in the pleadings (which was an oddly expressed clause). They also did not pick up a Court of Appeal decision directly on point and delivered one week before the filing of this document. 23 [101] The costs revisors were highly critical of this process which involved 12 drafts of the fifth amended statement of claim. It was...

8. AW v ZK LCRO 230/2012 (28 March 2014) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...two costs assessors that the fee invoices did not amount to overcharging.9 [16] I am not constrained or limited in the scope of my review by the decision of the Standards Committee. The review jurisdiction of this Office is broader than an appeal and it gives the Review Officer a discretion concerning the approach to be taken on any particular review. The Review Officer must come to his or her own decision.10 Review jurisdiction – complaints concerning fee invoices pre-LCA...

9. RN v QW LCRO 226/2012 (8 September 2016) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...No. 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v P (2001) 18 PRNZ 760 (HC). and in particular the fact that “the discretion to omit fresh evidence should be sparingly used and not to provide litigants with an opportunity to bolster their case on appeal”. Counsel submits the evidence does not meet the test for “fresh evidence” for the reasons explained in the submissions. 15 [79] As to delay, the date of the conduct, 14 August 2009, is raised and the time the complaint and rev...

10. [2009] NZEmpC AC 30/09 Masonry Design Solutions Ltd v Bettany [pdf, 74 KB]

    ...test, in the alternative, as whether the employee engaged in the conduct in question knowing that it would cause loss to his or her employer. [52] This is a matter of foreseeability. In this jurisdiction the principle was re- stated by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 2 NZLR 342 at 361-362 as follows: The loss must be “sufficiently linked to the breach of the particular duty to merit recovery in all the circumstances” (McElroy Milne v Commercial Electron...