Search Results

1. O'Connell & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 294 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2012-100-000017 [2013] NZWHT AUCKLAND 7 BETWEEN PATRICK AND LESLEE O’CONNELL Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND CEDRIC DUDLEY FRENCH Second Respondent AND ROBERT PETER JOSEPH TOEBOSCH Third Respondent Hearing: 27 and 28 November 2012 Closing Written Submissions: 12 December 2012 – claimants first and second respondents 14 December 2012- Mr Toebosch, third respondent Closing Oral

2. [2020] NZEmpC 149 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe NZ Ltd [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...as a preliminary question, rather than the more limited focus which could be provided by a strikeout application. 1 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZERA 101 (Removal determination). [5] The defendants then discontinued their application for a strikeout order, with the parties agreeing that the Court should determine the jurisdictional issues as preliminary questions, on the basis o...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 103 Beadle v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 4.6 MB]

   ...~;n1~V'IIJP'q;Jlll1}Q1Polm:on P~lPtlld~l'I01 bllrco-oc:klc:odr, p.111 Ol'llilor~lldw;:loul ll'IOWl'll!ll'!l ?(l'i=:.IOnd?la!Cll'tOtlP¢~LJ'. Thi; OUWl!!i and I.I: ec~ ::."1110 01\lf DI~ lc,r U,11 puri.,c,:;. 101 wfl.d'I 1 =- m:enood. N::i ~d)L."Jtll;llbll1~10db'JP':l:Gr=iF'llh LP lor,uun11111~GUdY"- ' Waterfall Park Developments Ltd Sec 69 Blk VII Shotover SD, Lots 1 & 2 DP 23038, Lot 1 DP 2...

4. Muller v Yerman [2015] NZIACDT 88 (31 August 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a Judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a Judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather whether an aggrieved litigant should be permitted to seek recusal on the basis of rulings that are eithe...

5. Clarke v Gray – Poukawa 9G and others (2013) 23 Takitimu MB 92 (23 TKT 92) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...must be exceptional 8 Andrew Butler “Trustees and Beneficiaries” in Andrew Butler (ed) Equity and Trusts in New Zealand (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2009) 105 at 148. 23 Takitimu MB 101 circumstances to warrant such an action. There must also be a failure by the trustee to perform a duty owed to the beneficiary to protect the interests of the beneficiary.9 [38] However, it cannot be said there has been any such...

6. CAC20003 v Santipongchai [2015] NZREADT 11 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...allowing Mr Santipongchai to be in a position to reinstate his licence. [19] It is put for the prosecution that we have taken a consistent and strong stance against dishonest behaviour affecting consumers. In REAA v Brendan Marshall [2013] NZREADT 101 the licensee had been charged with instances of fraud against his employing agency and dishonesty against a client; and we found that: 6 “[50] The evidence is compelling that a substantial number of concerning frauds have bee...

7. Ross and Ellis v Te Moni - Otumoko B4 (2010) 2 Waikato Maniapoto MB 243 (2 WMN 243) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...(In liq) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2002] 3 NZLR 648. [25] As the party entitled to exclusive possession of the land, the lessee is entitled to exclude all other persons, including an owner from the premises – Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209. 2 Waikato Maniapoto MB 248 [26] An action for recovery of land turns upon the right to possession. In this case, the party entitled to possession of the land are the trustees of the Ellis Family Trust namely Mahaki E...

8. 2011 NZCA 141 [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...[2009] NZCA 145. 8 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750. 9 At [159]. 10 R v V (CA57/04) CA57/04, 14 July 2004. 11 R v T (CA674/07) [2008] NZCA 157. 12 R v M (CA477/07) [2008] NZCA 168 at [10]. 13 R v I (CA70/08) [2009] NZCA 101 at [15]. The offending in this case was very similar to Mr Webster’s. [33] We also consider Judge Joyce’s 60 per cent figure is very consistent with this Court’s decision in R v AM, even though Judge Joyce did not have the bene...

9. ENV-2016-AKL-000270 Tram Lease Limited v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...viewer to provide for a minimum 32.5m (above ground at the site) floor of the volcanic viewshaft. 100.4 Delete Rules 2.11.1.1 and 2.11.1.2 and the basic floor area ratio and bonus floor area controls. Site 26: Other sites: (Maps 26A to 26I) 101 Other sites where similar decisions are sought regarding the general amendments listed in Appendix D include:

10. BORA Advice Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill [pdf, 255 KB]

    ...Schreiber v Canada (Attorney-General) [1998] 1 SCR 841, [19]-[25] (expectation of privacy in overseas records) and R v Simmons [1988] 2 SCR 495, 528 (expectation of privacy in border searches). 4 [1997] 1 NZLR 399 (CA), 407. 5 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [172]. 4 3217771_ATTORNEY GENERAL - BORA VETTING ADVICE TO THE AG greater the justification required (and the greater the attendant safeguards required to ensure that the justification is present). 14....