Search Results

1. Peacocke - Part Puketiti 2B 2B 1 Block and Lot 1-Deposited Plan South Auckland 33533 (2020) 205 Waikato Maniapoto MB 202 (205 WMN 202) [pdf, 348 KB]

   ...Maniapoto MB 219 [77] If the transfer had taken effect according to its tenor by virtue of the fact that Puku Doherty was Māori, the status of Puketiti 2B2B1 would have remained as Māori freehold land. The Land Transfer system did not permit a single block to have two different statuses.38 [78] I reach the position that the transfer did not take effect according to its tenor in accordance with s 226(1). Had it done so then the LTO should have endorsed PR277/43 as recordi...

2. Induction guide for legal aid providers - v1.2 January 2017 [pdf, 659 KB]

   ...evidence are large and complex and there’s a substantial volume of documentary evidence. The Crown must also be represented by at least 2 counsel. The junior counsel takes a secondary role under the supervision of the lead provider and isn’t permitted to undertake the substantive hearing even if the lead provider is unavailable. Junior counsel can be of a lower listing approval category than the lead provider and will be remunerated up to their own approval category (not the proce...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 138 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...interests protected or recognised by law. [19] Although made in a criminal law context, the defendants rely on the statement in Adams on Criminal Law about s 27 that: 12 [Section] 27 provides a wide “catch-all” right to fair trials which may permit Courts to hold that rights not specifically covered elsewhere in the Bill of Rights are nevertheless implicit in the right of natural justice. An example would be the right not to make incriminating statements prior to trial and...

4. Singh v McKee [2024] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...the employee may not exercise or continue to exercise any rights relating to the subject matter of the grievance that the employee may have under this Act. [59] At the hearing, Mr Singh conceded that the effect of HRA s 79A was that he was not permitted to pursue this claim under HRA s 66 as it relates to matters that are already before the ERA, as that claim includes an allegation he was unjustifiably dismissed when made redundant in December 2020, and that this unjustifiable dismiss...

5. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 27 [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...threshold to be met for an uplift is a high one and uplifted costs are awarded sparingly.55 The threshold for an order of increased costs in this proceeding has, in my determination, not been made out. [101] The High Court Rule 14.6(3)(b)(ii) does permit an award of costs to be increased if the party opposing costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceedings according to three categorises of criteria. I am satisfied that those criteria do not apply in...

6. Cook v Manawatu Community Law Centre [2021] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any act...

7. [2019] NZEnvC 033 Liu v Auckland Council [pdf, 457 KB]

   ...administrative decision by the Council authorising use of certain residential property as emergency housing. The Tribunal held that as there had been no application for resource consent, such use coming within the relevant plan provisions for a permitted activity, there was therefore no right of appeal under s 120 RMA. Again, the circumstances of that case are clearly distinguishable from the present case. [44] In my view it goes too far to say that the appeal is a nullity. In ordin...

8. [2008] NZEmpC CC 4A/08 Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...2006. Although it regarded itself as unable to begin a disciplinary process until released from the requirements of confidentiality imposed by Mr Anderson and Mr Gardner and that did not occur until shortly before 23 June, Sealord nevertheless permitted Ms Sefo to continue working as normal during that period. Indeed the evidence shows that it discussed with her the possibility that she might assume a more responsible position in the workplace. That seems to be more consistent with...

9. Matthews v Matthews - Estate of Graham Ngahina Matthews [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 512 (2015 APPEAL 512) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...tried to farm and occupy these lands. [33] The vesting of these interests in one person has the benefit of avoiding fragmentation – a tendency which Graham opposed and saw as a cause of loss of land from Māori ownership. [34] Vesting in Duncan permits him to continue to farm the lands. This has the benefit of providing him with an incentive to best manage the lands whilst carrying out the stewardship passed on to him by his father. [35] By declining to grant the vesting order a...

10. Regulatory Impact Statement Vulnerable childrens bill child harm prevention orders [pdf, 234 KB]

    ...comparisons 106. The White Paper for Vulnerable Children Volume II sets out in detail steps that comparable jurisdictions have taken to protect children. In Australia, Child Protection Prohibition Orders provide a preventative mechanism that permits courts to order that registered offenders not engage in certain types of behaviour or employment, go certain places, or contact certain people. 107. In the United Kingdom the courts can impose a Disqualification Order to prevent an...