Search Results

1. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 v X [2010] NZLCDT 14 [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...type of charge available under the Law Practitioners Act, nor any penalty regime, other than as contained in s.114, which has significant penalties appropriate only to serious misconduct. 3 Section 101(1) and (2) Law Practitioners Act 1982 4 Section 101(2)(b) Law Practitioners Act 1982 5 Section 114(1) Law Practitioners Act 1982 7 [23] We have also considered what is meant by “proceedings” being “commenced” in Secti...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 206 E Tu Inc v Carter Holt Harvey LVL Ltd [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...determined on the particular circumstances of the case. 1 E Tū Inc v Carter Holt Harvey LVL Ltd [2021] NZERA 366 (Member Arthur). 2 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc (No 3) [2018] NZEmpC 101 at [6]−[8]. [9] I am satisfied that this is indeed a case where it is appropriate to grant both applications. I accordingly order that both BusinessNZ and NZCTU have leave to intervene. They may file and lead evidence only wi...

3. MLC June 2012 Māori land update [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...59,359.3397 Waikato Maniapoto 1263 1589 2245 88,607.3485 37,083.7003 Waiariki 2157 2374 2829 276,138.5142 37,834.9673 Tairāwhiti 1303 1571 3726 210,070.4721 52,279.1844 Tākitimu 495 566 788 70,009.6534 17,962.4642 Aotea 1186 1753 2074 356,026.8922 101,624.6785 Te Waipounamu 570 1362 1002 42,794.5315 25,250.2858 Total 7981 10690 16658 1,130,013.4856 331,412.6202 Other Statistics The smallest 10% of blocks has an average size of 0.79 ha and average 36 owners; The largest 10...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 185 S v N [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...therefore, N’s application is granted. The notice filed in anticipation of the application being granted will be treated as the notice of opposition. [6] There is one other matter that needs to be addressed. The Authority ordered that pursuant to cl 10(1) of sch 2 to the Act the names of the parties and any information that might identify them was not to be published. The ambit of that order means it applies to the name of N’s advocate. In the interim, the non-publication orde...

5. Nepe v Hill and Woodville (Extension of Time) [2022] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 493 KB]

   ...ensure that in future any documents required to be filed with the Tribunal are sent to the hrrt@justice.govt.nz email address and copied to the lawyer for Ms Nepe and to Mr Tayler on behalf of Woodville. ORDER [10] The following order is made: [10.1] Ms Hill’s statement of reply sent to the Tribunal on 1 July 2022 is accepted for filing. 3 [10.2] The Secretary of the Tribunal is to set down a case management teleconference on the next available date. ..............

6. 2022-02-16 ORC - MOC - re omission from PC1 (Chapter 6 ) & PC8 (Primary Sector provisions) decisions [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...included in the Court’s decisions in relation to the primary sector provisions of PC8 or Chapter 6 of PC1. 4 The Court when considering a matter referred to it under section 149T of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), must apply clause 10(1) to (3) of Schedule 1 as if it were a local authority.1 The Council acknowledges that the decisions, at paragraph [47] of the PC8 primary decision and paragraph [35] of the PC1 Chapter 6 decision, state that the Court’s decisions wer...

7. Meroiti v Meroiti - Owhata No 1J No 2B (2024) 315 Waiariki MB 183 (315 WAR 183) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...threshold test to be met in order for a stay to be granted is that if this stay is not granted, it will render the appeal to the Māori Appellate Court nugatory.4 4 Taueki – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Māori Reservation Trust (2012) 279 Aotea MB 101 (279 AOT 101), at [14]. 315 Waiariki MB 188 Māori Appellate Court proceedings [14] The applicant submits that the appeal to the Māori Appellate Court will be nugatory. if no stay of enforcement is granted. [15] Clearly, the...

8. Carey Clan Trust v Still [pdf, 197 KB]

   1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-101-000022 BETWEEN CAREY CLAN TRUST Claimant AND REX STILL First Respondent AND SUSAN STILL Second Respondent AND TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL Third Respondent AND CGAF LIMITED T/A BAY INSPECTIONS (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND THE BUILDING ADVISORY BUREAU NZ LIMITED (BAB) (Removed) Fifth Respondent AND KENRICK BUCKLEY (Removed) Sixth Respondent AND WESTERN COATINGS LIMITED Seventh Respondent AN...

9. BI v YR Inc [2013] NZDT 439 (25 October 2013) [pdf, 13 KB]

   ...for the original claim and this claim. It may otherwise do, if it were not for the specific bar on claims in respect of money due under any enactment. [2] Section 11(7) of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 states: “Without limiting [section 10(1A) or (2)], nothing in subsection (1) of that section in so far as it confers jurisdiction in quasi-contract on a Tribunal shall be construed as authorising a claim in respect of money due under any enactment.” [3] The fact that BI’s n...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 198 Banora v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

    ...on 28/06/2018 and revised on 11/04/2019, Rev C3. 2) Extend the retaining wall (the blue line) along the property east border all the way to the southeast corner and then southwestwards along the south boundary, on the following drawings: 2044-01-101 issued on 28/06/2018 and revised on 16/05/2019, Rev C4. 2044-01-200 issued on 12/02/2019 and revised on 11/04/2019, Rev C2. 2044-01-230 issued on 12/02/2019 and revised on 11/04/2019, Rev C2. 2044-01-300 issued on 28/06/2018 and revised on 1...