Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 100 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 366 KB]

   ...parties involved, but future plan users. [29] Although these are declaratory proceedings, we find principles that have been applied in other RMA contexts of some relevance here. Costs are not usually awarded against Councils in the context of s120 appeals unless it can be shown that they have neglected a duty. 30 It is even more unlikely that costs will be awarded against Councils in plan appeals and it has been held that a relatively high threshold has to be reached before an award...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 89 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...possibility, making the point that the two challenges raised discrete procedural issues, which needed to be heard separately. [51] I agree with Mr Towner. The position is not unlike that which arose in Skinner v Stayinfront Inc.11 There, the Court of Appeal stated that it was logical and sensible to determine a preliminary issue ahead of a merits hearing, in the particular circumstances of that proceeding. [52] For the purposes of this case, I remain of the view, as was agreed wit...

3. Fisher v Foster (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 54 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...[30]–[32]. [18] Striking out is often the appropriate course where the statement of claim is prolix and unintelligible. See Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679. At [84] the Court of Appeal set out the requirements of a statement of claim (High Court Rules 2016, rr 5.17, 5.26 and 5.27). Those requirements apply equally in proceedings before the Tribunal. Specifically: [18.1] The pleading must be accurate, clear and intelli...

4. Gwak and Kim TRI-2020-100-006 Procedural Order 11 [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...that they were unaware that they were able to join other parties to this claim. (b) The claimants say that the joinder application to join their lawyers was further complicated by subsequent removal applications from two respondents and an appeal they launched against the removal of one of those respondents. They say that they had to attend to “three continuous proceedings of two second removal applications and an appeal to the High Court between May 2021 and April 2023�...

5. Stewart v Eru - Succession to Teressa Ivor Silcock (2020) 200 Waikato Maniapoto MB 184 (200 WMN 184) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...Te Hiwi Piahana Whānau Trust v Ngāti Tukorehe Tribal Committee and Tahamata Incorporation (2014) 319 Aotea MB 238 (319 AOT 238) at [11]-[13]. 2 Taueki v Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Māori Reservation Trust [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 652 (2019 APPEAL 652). 3 Karepa v Te Riini – The Kikorangi and Kareti Whānau Trust (2016) 144 Waiariki MB 3 (144 WAR 3), citing Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation – Matauri X Incorporation (2009) 7 Taitokerau Court MB 206 (7 APWH 216). 4 See, for e...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 168 Lawson v NZ Transport Agency interlocutory [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...they are ultimately awarded against him. Indeed this is his explanation for not satisfying the costs award made against him in the Authority. [7] There is a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 5 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order...

7. [2007] NZEmpC CC 23/07 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Mr Martin for the Commissioner sought to require the plaintiff to be limited in the evidence that she will be entitled to adduce leading to her dismissal grievance by reference to the nature of that claim. As Mr Martin pointed out, the Court of Appeal in Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 set out three categories or classes of constructive dismissal in employment. That the categories may not necessarily be closed is not for decision in this case, a...

8. Crozier - Succession to Molly Crozier [2023] Chief Judge's MB 531 (2023 CJ 531) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...209) at [15]. 2023 Chief Judge's MB 539 into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.5 This means that the Applicants must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:6 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 199 Breen v Prime Resources Company Ltd [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...makes plain, there was no suggestion at the time that Mr Chung was deliberately being disingenuous. [16] The distinction between personal grievances and disputes, and the remedial routes available in respect of each, was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Auckland College of Education v Hagg. While the Court was concerned with s 27(1)(b) of the Employment Contracts Act 1991, that provision was in materially the same terms as s 103(3) in the current Act.7 The Court made the foll...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Elia [2017] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 110 KB]

    ...the Registrar of the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [29] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _______________...