Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC WC 20A/07 Gaskin v Grenside [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...and binding on and enforceable by them. The terms may not be cancelled under s7 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and, except for enforcement purposes, no party may seek to bring the terms before the Authority or the Court whether by action, appeal, application for review, or otherwise (s149(3)). The parties must affirm their request to the mediator knowing of these matters. [21] A person who breaches an agreed term of settlement to which subsection (3) applies is liable...

2. [2009] NZEmpC AC 54/08 A v The Internet Company of NZ [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...another person, there is not a requirement that the potential litigant will bring such a claim. They observed that this was addressed in British Steel Corpn v Granada Television Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 417, where Lord Templeman in the Court of Appeal stated at p443: In my judgment the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal case applies whether or not the victim intends to pursue action in the courts against the wrongdoer provided that the existence of a cause of action is establ...

3. CAC 405 v Phillips [2016] NZREADT 39 [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...Ms Phillips did not do this – she simply gave up trying to find Ms Harvey and allowed the unauthorised grazing to continue. Is this serious enough to amount to misconduct? [14] The Tribunal have considered the statement set out by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales in Pillai v Messiter (No. 2) [1989] 16 NSWLR 197 where the Court said: “Departures from elementary and generally accepted standards of which … a practitioner could scarcely be heard to say that he or she was ign...

4. WT Te Manutukutuku Issue 70 [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...New Zealand Māori Council in a series of high­profile court cases contesting government policies of the late 1980s. Among other things, this litigation helped establish the current legal status of the Treaty of Waitangi, through the Court of Appeal’s articulation of Treaty principles in its Lands judgment. Later, Sir Graham reflected that up until 1987 ‘the Māori dimension in New Zealand law was understated… After the Appeal Court decision it attained a position of equality...

5. BORA Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...1 R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200 (Canadian Supreme Court); S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso (1995) 2 SACR 748 (South African Constitutional Court) and R v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC (Const) 547 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal) 2 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7 3 Important and Significant Objective 14. As noted above, the purpose of the amendment is to restrict the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to make it more difficult for potential m

6. Body Corporate 85978 and Unit Owners of St Pauls Apartments v Wellington City Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...under the Act. Mr Parker however submits that a whole of complex approach should be taken when determining whether it is a hotel or motel and not on a unit by unit consideration. [67] In Spencer on Byron4 the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded it was not appropriate to impose a duty of care on the Council 4 North Shore City Council v Body Corporate (Spencer on Byron) 207624 CA CA760/2009, 21 April 2011....

7. [2012] NZEmpC 76 N Ltd v O [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...three months, plus the additional time that a determination would take to be issued. [14] Mr Pollak cited Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd 3 where the full Court dealt with the change in the wording of s 125 of the Act and cited from the Court of Appeal judgment in Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees 4 that there was no dispute between the parties in that case that the onus of proof of lack of practicability rests with the employer. 5 The full Court in Angus stated: 6...

8. Shortland v Tipene - Motatau 2 Section 34A1 (2015) 114 Taitokerau MB 212 (114 TTK 212) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...or agent, of rent, purchase money, royalties, or other proceeds of the alienation of land, or of any compensation payable in respect of other revenue derived from the land, affected by any order to which an application under section 45 or an appeal under Part 2 relates. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80dc890d_19_25_se&p=1&id=DLM290914#DLM290914 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw...

9. MacGregor v Craig (Second Interim Non-Publication Order) [2015] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...s 95 to make any interim order necessary in the interests of justice to preserve the position of the parties. [37] It is now intended to address first the general principles to be applied in an application under s 95 and second, recent Court of Appeal decisions in which the open justice principle is considered in the context of name suppression applications in civil proceedings. INTERIM ORDERS UNDER SECTION 95 – PRINCIPLES [38] The relevant principles applicable to interim order a...

10. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 s274 evidence chief Janet Moore Appendix 3 Makgill [pdf, 303 KB]

    ...of the Treaty acknowledges that aboriginal title (‘the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of [Māori] Lands ...’) operates as a qualification on the Crown’s radical title.65. Accordingly, in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa 66 the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Crown’s radical title acquired on cession of sovereignty (imperium) was subject to the pre-existing rights of Māori. Sovereignty should not be conflated with absolute ownership (dominium) and the Crown’s radical ti...