Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 7 Air New Zealand Ltd v Wulff [pdf, 117 KB]

   AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V WULFF - SUPPLEMENTARY NZEmpC AK [2013] NZEmpC 7 [1 February 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 7 ARC 101/09 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff AND RANDALL WULFF Defendant Hearing: on the papers - memoranda received 30 March, 23 April and 11 May 2012 Appearances: G L Norton, counsel for the plaintiff P F...

2. B v Q LCRO 48 / 2009 (20 April 2009) [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...been of such a degree or so frequent as to reflect on his fitness to practise as a barrister or solicitor, or as to tend to bring the profession into disrepute.” In investigating this matter the Committee has considerable powers conferred by s 101 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982. In most cases it is not necessary to exercise these powers as practitioners willingly provide information in respect of the matter in issue. In this case there seems to have been some reluctance on the pa...

3. Hei - Maraehako C3D (2017) 174 Waiariki MB 274 (174 WAR 274) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...(5 July 1984) 114 New Zealand Gazette 2419 at 2430; note also the corrigendum to the area of the Māori Reservation - (2 August 2007) 87 New Zealand Gazette 2231 at 2264 and (17 April 2008) 73 New Zealand Gazette 2009 at 2056. 2 70 Ōpōtiki MB 101 (70 OPO 101). 3 100 Ōpōtiki MB 278-281 (100 OPO 278-281). 174 Waiariki MB 276 Bartlett as replacement trustees for Eva Davies and Alice Smith.4 That order was subsequently quashed on 30 August 2017.5 Issues [7] The issue...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 215 Southland District Council v Peter Chartres [pdf, 958 KB]

   ...revising the remediation/mitigation measures. [4] During the hearing, an issue arose as to whether either of the proceedings 1 Application for Enforcement Orders dated 14 August 2020, at [1(c)]. 2 Southland District Council v Chartres [2020] NZEnvC 101. (a) (b) 3 had been properly brought before the court in terms of the exercise of powers delegated by the Council under the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’ or ‘the Act’) which we have considered. [5] We addre...

5. Government Response to Law Commission report on the Review of the Privacy Act 1993 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...this response as it is not a recommendation to the Government); two recommendations are contained in Invasion of Privacy: Penalties and Remedies (NZLC 113) (Recommendations 18 and 19); and one recommendation is contained in Public Registers (NZLC 101) (Recommendation 7). 4 Recommendation 1 5 Recommendation 2 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/g/government-response-to-law-commission-report-invasion-of-privacy-penalties-and-remedies http://www.justice.govt.nz/...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 047 Warwick Hansen The Haupouri Partnership v Hastings District Council [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...involving a specific undertaking by one party to another. o 2 Lysaght v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd W 030/2007. f: 'l/~)3 Springs Promotions Ltd v Springs Stadium Residents' Association Inc [2005] 12 ELRNZ • . 30, [2006]1 NZLR 846, [2006] NZRMA 101 (HC). ~ fora v Te Kohanga Reo Trust [1996] NZRMA 556. z .11 :5 o ~:r ~ ~I ~~ },,'V ;1. P" 4J!i; V),_~~:~~y ,Et2!j~P 4 [17] The s274 parties accept there is no direct relief before the Court seeking provision o...

7. Cameron & Ors as Trustees of the Normac Trust v Stevenson [2011] NZWHT Auckland 17 [pdf, 87 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-101-000012 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 17 BETWEEN DAVID LINDSAY CAMERON, BRENDA MURIEL CAMERON and GEOFFREY HEWIT MYLES as Trustees of the NORMAC TRUST Claimants AND DAVID LAWRENCE STEVENSON First Respondent AND CHRISTOPHER JOHN CHOTE Second Respondent AND BMW PLUMBING LIMITED Third Respondent AND CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND BRIAN MUSSON (Removed) Fifth Respond...

8. 20230328-Integrity-Sport-and-Recreation-Bill.pdf [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...search does not authorise searches that would be unreasonable and thus, infringe protected rights.7 Therefore, testing and monitoring will need to be undertaken in a manner that is compliant with s 21. 3 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 4 Ibid at [162] per Blanchard J. 5 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [172] per Blanchard J. 6 Drew v Attorney General [2002] 1 NZLR 58 (CA). 7 Cropp v Judicial Committee [...

9. BORA Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...the importance of the objective? Compelled expression – the provision of documents and evidence 10. One aspect of the Commission’s investigative powers involves the Commission being able to compel persons to provide information or evidence: 10.1 Clause 31(2) provides that the Commission “may obtain from any person … any information that the Commission considers relevant to an investigation”; 10.2 Clause 32 provides that the Commission may, by written notice, require a pers...

10. LCRO 114/2017 SM v JC (31 August 2017) [pdf, 137 KB]

    ...response unopened. [17] In a reply filed by his employers, it was confirmed that Mr JC had advised Ms SM he could not talk to her because his client had instructed him not to, other than through her lawyer, before he terminated any call. Rule 10.1 of the Lawyers’ Conduct and Client Care Rules1 is said not to have been contravened, because Mr JC was not discourteous in his conduct towards Ms SM. 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (L...