Search Results

1. 2021-02-05 Central Otago Winegrowers Association Evidence of James Dicey [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...casual jobs have also been created due to this investment. 50. Short terms associated with water consents will compromise the values of vineyards and make development of additional productive area prohibitive. The costs of securing the short term permits are rapidly escalating and will redirect money to funding these applications rather than developing more productive land. 51. Water is applied in a very effective and efficient manner in accordance with industry best practice. Add...

2. Williams v Trustees of the Hokio Part A Ahu Whenua Trust - Part Hokio A Section 1-4 Block IV (2014) 321 Aotea MB 24 (321 AOT 24) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...and at or about that time, had re-vested in it land and houses formerly owned by the Crown. This included 11 houses at Hokio beach. [4] The current trust order dates from May 2004 and by clause 3(b)(11) includes the right of the trustees to permit occupation. There are also powers to lease. [5] I heard today from one of the trustees, Vivienne Taueki, who gave evidence that when the properties were handed back from the Crown they were in a poor state and had been run down. The i...

3. Watson v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2015] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information. (3) The application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Parts 4 and 5. [67] Refusal of access is permitted only in the circumstances identified in ss 27 to 29. See s 30: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297080� http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297092�...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 228 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...attributes of a barrister. It is his duty to not keep back from the court any information which ought to be before it, and he must in no way mislead the court by stating facts that are untrue, or mislead the judge as to the true facts, or knowingly permit a client to attempt to deceive the court. How far a barrister may go on behalf of his client is a question too difficult to be capable of abstract definition, but when concrete cases arise one can see for oneself whether what he ha...

5. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...purpose and intent, and must properly address the grievance which caused offence to be taken. [57] Mr RB’s apology is framed as follows:16 Pursuant to the order of the Standards Committee and without being able to understand why a lawyer is not permitted to ask a Police Officer to be truthful in Court and also not being able to understand how asking a Police Officer to be truthful is equivalent to the making a positive statement the Police Officer is lying when the two are different,...

6. Nightingale v CAC10055 & Lee, Godfrey & Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2012] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...Pastorial Ltd & Ors: "As established in Henderson v Henderson if a point ought properly to have been put before a Court which is the subject of litigation, a party may not subsequently at a later date re-open old wounds to raise a matter. To permit such a course would be contrary to the principle of finality in litigation.” 10 The same principle is applied in the Australian Courts, referred to as "Anshun estoppel". A recent statement of the "Anshun princip...

7. Smith v Smith - Nuki o Te Hapū Tahawai ki Rataroa Whānau Trust [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 110 (2019 APPEAL 110) [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...acceptable to the beneficiaries. By excluding the mokopuna, he contends, the Court could not be satisfied as to the test of broad acceptability. Third, he says that the notice for the meeting was inadequate. Fourth, Mr Smith argues that proxy voting, permitted under at least one of the trust orders, was applied inconsistently, thereby tainting the election outcomes. [3] The respondents deny these claims. They say that there was no exclusion of beneficiaries, and that some of the...

8. Scarborough v Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2015] NZHRRT 43 [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...as their intention is to harm the plaintiff. [7.1.2] In other proceedings for sexual harassment against a different employer she has made identical allegations that the legal representatives engaged by the employer are not qualified or otherwise permitted to appear. Her claims have been firmly rejected. See Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 39 (30 March 2015) and the related costs decision in Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 105 (3 July 2...

9. [2019] NZREADT 45 Beatson - Ruling on Costs (26 November 2019) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...The appellant will have 10 working days within which to file any memorandum on the matter of costs arising from the material which the second respondents have provided, with such submission again not exceeding four pages. The Authority will be permitted to file submissions on costs (subject to the same page restrictions) within a further 10 working days. [2019] NZREADT 45 - Beatson - Ruling on Costs - sealed Finally, the second respondents will have a further period of five worki...

10. [2008] NZEmpC Maritime Union of NZ Inc and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 46 KB]

    ...of Appeal judgments and applicable to conventional inter-parties litigation may not apply, at least with the same force, in cases such as this. [26] The broad discretion given by clause 19 to Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 permits the Court, under the unique regime of employment relations, and this Court’s appreciation of them and their implications, to do justice in costs by taking account of factors such as those I have just outlined. [27] So I accept that...