Search Results

1. CK v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 63 / 2011 (11 October 2013) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...NZLS is that the added 7 Submissions from CL to LCRO (18 July 2013) at [10]. 6 delay and complexity of a two-step approach achieves nothing, and that the purposive interpretation ought to permit a Standards Committee to make a publication direction subject only to the Board approving it. [24] Starting with Regulation 30, which requires that Standards Committee’s publication orders must have the “prior approval” of the Bo...

2. Body Corporate 180379 v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...assessor’s report is prepared. 6 Potential respondents are not notified at this stage. There is no prescribed method for the withdrawal or discontinuance of a pre-adjudication stage claim although section 141 in the transitional provisions permit claims to be withdrawn for the sole purpose of allowing claimants to be part of multi-unit complex claims. [22] The adjudication stage is more prescribed. It is managed by the Tribunal and commences when an application for ad...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 219 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...plaintiff’s current employer, and I do not consider it engages any particular concerns. [46] For these reasons I dismiss LSG’s application and determine on the evidence provided that there is no reason covered by the Rules which would not permit Kensington Swan to continue to act for Mr Matsuoka and Pacific. [47] Costs are reserved. B S Travis Judge Judgment signed at 12.45pm on 19 December 2012

4. MacGregor v Craig (Application for Witness Summonses) [2015] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...bank statements for 1984” than to the more appropriately particularised “monthly bank statements for the year 1984 relating to your current account with a named bank”. The former may be sufficient, the latter is not. While the English cases permit “a compendious description of several documents”, there is an important proviso, namely that the exact document must in each case be clearly indicated. See In Re Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases at 337-338. As stated in Tajik Alum...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 187 Walker v Delta Community Support Trust [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...express waiver under s 65(1) of the EA, but only of the contents of that email and not in respect of any aspect of the legal advice given beyond what is referred to in the email. [45] A final point is that the section relied on by the defendant permits a Judge to order that the document not be disclosed in a proceeding; it does not provide for the making of an order that documents be returned and/or destroyed. Even were it to be considered that such a jurisdiction exists (for ins...

6. [2019] NZEnvC 012 Ohau Protection Society v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 7.2 MB]

   ...adjoining landform. Rehabilitation works must be undertaken within 3 months following the completion of physical works in any one area. 28. It is prohibited to undertake any earlhworks or excavations within 20 metres of any waterway, except where permitted by the District Plan. 29. The consent holder must ensure that suitable sed iment control and soil run-off measures are in place during the earthworks phase of the construction. Review of Consent 30. The Waitaki District Council ma...

7. Albert v Winitana - Heiotahoka 2B, Te Kopani 36 and Te Kopani 37 Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 52 Tairawhiti MB 136 (52 TRW 136) - (PDF, 212 KB) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...[29] I further note that whilst it may have been beneficial to vote for these positions when all the trustees are present, that did not happen in this case. Such a vote cannot be rendered unlawful where clearly the trust order and s 227 of the Act permit a majority of trustees to make decisions such as this. In this case a majority of trustees were present at the September 2014 hui and in the absence of any further evidence they were able to put and pass a vote of no confidence in t...

8. Wilson - The Heke and Miriama Hirini Whānau Trust (2016) 56 Tairawhiti MB 239 (56 TRW 239) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...47 At [30]. 56 Tairawhiti MB 250 is familiar with, for the next generation of owners it is nonetheless necessary. It would undermine the reasons for the trust’s establishment if partial termination were permitted in terms of all the applicants’ shares at this time. Whānau trusts prevent fragmentation and enable retention and that is what I must consider. [39] Trustees also act for the benefit of all the descendents of those persons whose

9. Jacobsen v Zhou [2015] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...service supplied such service to the public but refused to provide the complainant with the service by reason of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is then for the alleged discriminator to show that his, her or its actions came within one of the permitted statutory exceptions or within s 21B of the Act. [27] As to the causation requirement, the refusal or failure to provide goods, facilities or services or the treatment of a person less favourably in connection with the provision...

10. LCRO 247/2015 TL v CS (19 July 2017) [pdf, 240 KB]

    ...the former client would be undermined. [32] Rules 8.7 and 8.7.1:16 … reflect the exercise by the Court of its inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes, one of the aspects of which is the power to determine which persons should be permitted to appear before it as advocates. [33] For the prohibition in rule 8.7.1 to apply, the circumstances described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the rule must all be present. [34] Paragraph (a) requires that “the practice or a lawy...