Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 164 Zink v Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...[47] I observe that the Labour Inspector has not been involved in Mr Zink’s case, but as no submission has been made suggesting that this means neither the Authority nor the Court has jurisdiction, I proceed on the same basis as did the Court of Appeal. [48] The next material case is NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd.11 [49] There, the Court found that there was a closedown period which covered 14 days at Christmas, the...

2. J. Kim v K. E. H. Kim [2016] NZIACDT 32 (22 June 2016) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...denies she said the complainant could remain in New Zealand. She claims she provided full advice at a meeting on 21 February 2013. It included: [48.1] accurate advice regarding the 42 day period prior to liability for deportation; [48.2] the right to appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against deportation; [48.3] the right to request a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009; [48.4] the right to students visas pending an appeal; and, [48.5] other options such...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 183 Port Otago Ltd v Otago Regional Council [pdf, 13 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018J NZEnvC 183 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Act PORT OTAGO LIMITED (ENV-2016-CHC-086) Appellant OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner R M Dunlop Environment Commissioner D J Bunting Hearing: at Dunedin on 19 February 2018 (Final submissions...

4. Ratima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2012) 15 Takitimu MB 57 (15 TKT 57) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...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 of this Act or an appeal under Part 2 of this Act relates. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, any injunction made by the Court under this section may be expressed to be binding on the Māori Trustee. (3) Any injunction made by...

5. Brockie & Anor as Trustees of the Brockie Trust v Millington [2010] NZWHT Wellington 5 [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...bell; Mr Tribe was reluctant to admit this was a possibility. The Tribunal considers that it was further reassurance to a purchaser. 4.2 The Law [33] This is a case where there is concurrent liability in contract and tort. As the Court of Appeal said in Allison v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] 1 NZLR 560 at [99] (Thomas J): “Concurrent liability in contract and tort is now accepted, other than where it would permit a plaintiff to circumvent or escape a contractual exclusi...

6. Thompson - Wharekawa 5B South 4B1 (2006) 109 Hauraki MB 21 (109 H 21) [pdf, 643 KB]

   ...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 of this Act or an appeal under Part 2 of this Act relates. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, any injunction made by the Court under this section may be expressed to be binding on the Maori Trustee. (3) Any injunction made by the Co...

7. Kotahitanga Log Haulage Limited v Forest Distribution Limited - Mangaroa (2015) 121 Waiariki MB 149 (121 WAR 149) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...both as to the nature of the contractual arrangements and the various parties involved that would, in my view, more properly be dealt with by the Civil Courts. In terms of the interpretation I have applied to section 18(1)(d), I note the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the jurisdiction of this Court in the Attorney General and Māori Land Court case (the Tahora case). 5 Whilst not specifically on section 18(1)(d), the Court of Appeal does highlight the importance of reading sec...

8. Hita v Hita - Kaihu 1A2E3B2 [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1233 (2021 CJ 1233) [pdf, 543 KB]

   ...issue.3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. 3 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1244 [16] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:4 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in f...

9. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...s 213(2) of the Act to provide reasons for its decisions. [20] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Disciplinary Tribunal was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov. 3 In the first instance, the Court accepted that “[t]here is now oversight of the referral decision by the independent LCRO”.4 [21] In its judgment the Court also found there was no threshold test to meet before matters co...

10. Barriball v Schimanski - Otaraoa-B2E Block (2021) 431 Aotea MB 256 (431 AOT 256) [pdf, 287 KB]

    ...https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed81a8262f_231_25_se&p=1&id=DLM292141#DLM292141 431 Aotea MB 265 matters of operational management may require review, particularly where there is an apprehension of risk to the assets of the trust or a serious allegation requiring inquiry.16 [35] In Rameka v Hall, the Court of Appeal referred to the general responsibilities of trustees set out in s 223 of the Act, which include carrying...