Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 213 Dr X v a District Health Board [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...the Court lacked jurisdiction, and adjournments and delays associated with changes of counsel. [12] It was reasonable, given the nature of the interests involved, for the applicant to put a concerted effort into the application. As the Court of Appeal observed in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd, the proposition that costs must not be disproportionate to the monetary value of the successful party’s judgment is too absolute: 3 …both in itself and certainly in a case where justified...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 16 NZ Meatworkers & Related Trades Union Inc v Alliance Groups Ltd [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...no more than $45,000 plus GST of the costs actually incurred by the defendant can properly be regarded as reasonable. Proportion of reasonable costs which the plaintiff ought to pay [16] In accordance with the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, I take as a starting point an award of costs of two thirds of $45,000, that is $30,000. I disregard GST on the assumption that the defendant is GST registered and will already have recovered the whole of the GST component of its costs...

3. Te Ruatahi 2B Trust – Te Ruatahi 2C1 (2013) 58 Taitokerau MB 239 (58 TTK 239) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...without the consent of any person being required, be laid out – (a) Over any other Māori land...” On the face of it this provision appears to say exactly what it means, that consent of the owners is not required. However in the Court of Appeal judgment in Coles and Ors v Miller and Ors at paragraph 43 the Court says: “We can accept that it would have been a breach of natural justice if the Court had made a roadway order without either obtaining the consent of someone who...

4. Evans - Waitara West 52C - (2018) 383 Aotea MB 43 (383 AOT 43) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...ability, experience, and knowledge of the individual or body; and (b) shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the appointment of that individual or body would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [10] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the interpretation of s222.5 In that case the Court observed:6 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the...

5. Poutu v McDonald - Kaipakopako 2C2 (2024) 487 Aotea 78 (487 AOT 78).pdf [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...or refusal to act must be more than a one-off instance. What constitutes repeatedly is to be judged in context with a focus on the nature of the refusal. 3 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17) at [28]. 4 Nikora v Trustees of Tuhoe - Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua Trust (2021) 252 Waiariki MB 157 (252 WAR 157) at [69]. 5 Above n 3, at [28]. 487 Aotea MB 81 Kua tāruarua whakakahoretia a Mr McDonald i ngā mahi? Has Mr...

6. LCRO 219/2016 and 224/2016 AL v UT (24 January 2019) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...In particular it is noted that s 138(1)(f) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 provides that it is appropriate for the Committee to take no further action on the matter where: there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make 10 Appendix A – Additional Clauses, clause 18(a). 11 Standards Committee determination, above n 2 at [37]. 7...

7. 2010 to 2013 Ministry of Justice statement of intent [pdf, 498 KB]

   ...closely with the LSA in preparation for the transfer. Tribunals The Immigration Act 2009 established a single Immigration and Protection Tribunal to be administered by the Ministry, to decide immigration, deportation, refugee and protection appeals in New Zealand. It replaces four existing appellate bodies: - Residence Review Board – currently administered by the Department of Labour (DoL) - Removal Review Authority – currently administered by DoL - Refugee Status Appeals A...

8. Walker v Sinclair - Lot 9 DP 44307 (2013) 62 Taitokerau MB 203 (62 TTK 203) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...proceedings in the Court or for any other purpose whether any specified land is or is not held by any person in a fiduciary capacity, and, where it is, to make any appropriate vesting order. [25] In Attorney-General v Māori Land Court the Court of Appeal in considering whether s 18(1)(i) applied to General land concluded that: 4 We are satisfied from this survey of relevant provisions of the Act that, when s18(1)(i) is placed in its proper context, a reading which would enable it...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 139 MacKenzie v Vavasour Investments Limited [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...consent under Rule E15.4 A19 as a restricted discretionary activity; (b) A number of other rules in the AUP also apply, including buildings in an Outstanding Natural Landscape (which is a discretionary activity); 4 (c) Because of an outstanding appeal against a rule in the AUP relating to the number of dwellings permitted on the site, the development also requires consent under the Rodney section of the Auckland Council District Plan as an integrated residential development in...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 97 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

    ...defaulting party’s obligation clearly defined. That can especially apply where a party’s obligation is to serve particular documents but not file them. [7] In support of her application for ‘unless’ orders and relying on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in SM v LFDB, 2 the plaintiff contends that such orders may be made where there has been a repeated failure to comply with a party’s disclosure obligations and not merely with a specific court order such as one of those ma...