Search Results

1. CE v FG LCRO 346/2013 (27 August 2015) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...difficult and I reinforce the finding of the Standards Committee that he did not, when applying to the Court, breach any professional standards. [28] JE and CE are critical of Judge X’s judgment and advise they intend to take the matter on appeal. That is the proper forum in which they may express their views and reasons for doing so and this Office will not be used as a means of reinforcing proposed litigation.11 [29] The same comments apply in relation to the question as to wh...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 85 Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd v Total Property Services (Canterbury) Ltd [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...than brief, the merits may be considered. However, a decision declining an extension of time based on the claim lacking merit should only be made where the case is clearly hopeless.19 [21] Where there has been a slip, so that the date to file an appeal has been inadvertently, missed and steps are taken to rectify that mistake quickly, the delay is likely to be inconsequential. Conversely, the longer the delay the more the applicant is seeking an indulgence and the stronger the cas...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 43 Booth v Big Kahuna Holdings Limited Interlocutory [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...where a litigant is impecunious, although resident in New Zealand. This reinforces the desirability of a broader approach, and consideration of a range of factors in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s observation in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd that:7 [15] The rule [for security for costs] itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as...

4. [2009] NZEmpC CC 22/09 Gearry v Armourguard Security Ltd [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...significance at all in the context of this case. [28] Finally, there is no support for the proposition that redundancy gives rise to a general right to compensation unless “suitable alternative employment” is provided. To the contrary, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that redundancy compensation will only be payable by agreement and then in accordance with the terms of the agreement4. [29] Mr Wall’s argument that Mr Gearry’s claim for redundancy compensation could...

5. SW v UH LCRO 170/2014 (5 February 2016) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [16] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:3 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

6. Doney - Lot 2 DP 29547 (2017) 145 Taitokerau MB 4 (145 TTK 4) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...[1979] 2 NZLR 750 at 753. 145 Taitokerau MB 9 [24] Surprisingly, the relief in this statement of claim does not seek a determination that the subject lands are Māori customary land. [25] In Ngāti Apa v Attorney-General, 9 the Court of Appeal found that all land remains Māori customary land until the native title is lawfully extinguished. There is no question that the decision in Ngāti Apa is good law. The principle that customary title remains until lawfully extinguis...

7. Livingstone v The Trustees of Lake Taupō Forest Trust – Lake Taupō Forest Trust (2012) 295 Aotea MB 6 (295 AOT 6) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...trustees through regular elections. 5 The trust has thousands of owners and the issue of rotation was highly contentious. Proceedings continued over several years and involved proceedings before this, the Appellate Court and even the Court of Appeal. Put another way, the owners and trustees had been engaged in a 3 Proprietors of Mangakino Township Inc (1999) 73 Taupö MB 30 4 Rihia v Te Rūnanganui o Ngäti Hikairo...

8. [2023] NZREADT 20 - CAC 2107 v Sheldon (Penalty) (14 August 2023) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...ORDERS [46] Mr Sheldon is: 1. Censured. 2. Ordered to pay a fine of $2,000 to the Authority within one month of this decision. [47] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [48] Having regard to the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by licensees, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision.15 _____...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 32 Spillman v Tandem Skydiving 2002 Ltd t/a Taupo Tandem [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Ford [2010] ERNZ 433 at [14]. 8 Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330 at [20]. 9 Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172, (2004) 17 PRNZ 16 (CA) at [53]. approach was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell where the Court said:10 It has been repeatedly emphasised that the scarce resources of the Courts should not be burdened by litigants who choose to reject reasonable settlement offers, pro...

10. Canterbury Standards Committee v X [2011] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 125 KB]

    ...Court in Leary, and look forward when making a value judgment as to whether or not the respondent was a fit and proper person to practise as a barrister and solicitor, and not focus on his misconduct. [10] In Leary, the High Court allowed an appeal against the refusal of an application made by a former legal practitioner for restoration to the roll. The restoration applicant was restored to the roll on the basis that the consideration of whether or not he was a fit and proper pe...