Search Results

1. Edwards v ACC [2013] NZACA 10 [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...Edwards did not return to work full time after Joanne was born in October 1973 as she did when Fiona was around a year old, and the pattern she developed of part time and relief teaching which continued up to Geoffrey’s birth in 1980 and then as time permitted, throughout his school years, suggests that even under normal circumstances, she may well have changed her plans by the time her youngest child started kindergarten, irrespective of his care needs. [39] There is no evidence b...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 85 Agus Riyanto & 43 others v Dong Nam Company Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the Minimum Wages Act 1983 and the Wage Protection Act 1983 and undertakes to pay its crew the minimum wage specified from time to time. [27] There are other provisions relating to the employment of crew, including as to the obtaining of work permits for officers and crew for a minimum of 12 months, and as to husbandry services during each port visit throughout the term of the charter. [28] Each agreement provides that SERL was to pay a charter fee to the defendant, calculate...

3. BORA Social Security Long Term Residential Care Amendment Bill [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...whether the limit on the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of age can be justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. 42. The objective of the Bill is to remove the burden of asset testing as quickly as resources permit. In order to meet this objective a scheme that provides for the progressive removal of asset testing to persons over 65 is proposed. We consider this is reasonable taking into account the following factors: i. Approximately 97% of those...

4. LCRO 90/2016 FL v WZ (15 August 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...LJ in Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Assn Ltd: In giving its reasons for judgment [a Court] is not composing a general lecture upon a legal topic: it is setting out as succinctly as the time available for preparation permits, those propositions of law which it considers are correct, and which are essential steps in the decision it has reached in the particular case. It is not obliged to state an answer to the arguments against the propositions of law which...

5. Wang & Zhou v CAC 303 & Zhao [2016] NZREADT 45 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...Ferndale Property. Reluctant to discuss individual properties but indicated that it would be unusual for owners to be given a ‘blanket’ no for subdivision before land extensive tests were carried out, if the area of land was of sufficient size to permit sub-division in the right zone. [14] The Committee found that the marketing material created an impression that the property was readily subdivisible, that a subdivision was within planning requirements, when subdivision was no...

6. Fitikefu v Department of Corrections (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...limitation defence could be raised in proceedings before the Tribunal but whether the Tribunal had sufficient features in common with an inferior court to allow it to be treated as such a court for the purposes of the Judicature Act 1908, s 88B which permitted the restriction of vexatious actions. The Full Court was careful to emphasise its decision should not be construed as a determination that the Tribunal was an inferior court and the decision was expressly confined to the specific c...

7. Environment Court annual report 2014 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...implemented in light of the overall climate of factors. As discussed earlier in this report, the Court has dropped from 15 permanent Commissioners and 6 Deputies to 12 permanents and 5 Deputies. The continued option of access to Deputy Commissioners permits the Court the flexibility it needs to manage the variable workflows albeit their workload currently is quite low. The Principal Environment Judge’s plan to seek bolstering of Commissioner numbers in Christchurch and Auckland is on h...

8. Te Manutukutuku Issue 33 [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...in 1874 and 1876 most of the harbour was vest- ed in the Napier Harbour Board as a harbour endow- ment. Depriving Maori of access to wahi tapu and use of Te Whanganui-a-Orotu for fishing, shellfish gathering, transport and other purposes. Permitting serious environmental dam­ age and destruction. Failing to ensure, by legislation or oth­ erwise, that Maori had an effective role in the conservation and resource man­ agement of Te Whanganui-a-Orotu in accordance with their statu...

9. LCRO 59/2016 and 61/2016 DE and QV v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...Committee that a valuation as required by para 8 sch 4 to the Rules was not required on renewal of a loan and that was addressed by the Committee in its decision. In the applications for review the lawyers included the same issue: “LCN Rules do permit differentiation between initial loans and later renewals”. [20] However, Mr QV advised in his written and oral submissions for the review hearing that the “position was not maintained in this review”. [21] It seems therefore...

10. LCRO 70/2020 FL v TP (8 October 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

    ...review conducted by Review Officers properly falls within the definition of work carried out by a tribunal. [15] That inquiry is necessary in order to establish whether the discretion allowed under sch 2 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 which permits courts or tribunals to extend the timeframe for filing applications, ameliorates the strict approach Review Officers have historically adopted when considering review applications that have been filed out of time. [16] The functi...