Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 224 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...earlier position that such evidence was only admissible when the words of the agreement were ambiguous or unclear. Indeed, the current state of the law appears to be that in all cases such reference is possible and even desirable. The Court of Appeal has developed the following approach in contract cases. One looks first at the words used — they must obviously be the starting point — and then at the surrounding circumstances to make sure that the first impression of the meaning...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 123 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...thinks reasonable. [25] The usual position adopted by this Court in costs, once it is accepted that they should follow the event, is to make an award of two thirds of reasonable and actual costs incurred. That is confirmed by the three Court of Appeal authorities earlier mentioned. 8 The principles applying have more recently been confirmed in Belsham v Ports of Auckland Ltd. 9 [26] I have already indicated that I am not prepared to accept the plaintiff’s submissions in resp...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 221 Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...action on the part of the defendants have been filed. [19] One thing which emerged during the course of the hearing is that Mr Bali currently has no permit to remain in New Zealand but is entitled to stay here at the moment as a result of pending appeals in respect of decisions made on his residence application. Apparently, the outcome of these proceedings in the Employment Court may be material to the outcome of those other proceedings. A belated attempt was made by the defenda...

4. Smith - Nuhaka 2A4A9Y2 (2023) 122 Tairāwhiti 192 (122 TRW MB 192) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...shows that the applicant has 135.81652 shares in support out of 989.00000, amounting to 13.73% (rounded to the second decimal) of total shares. 2 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) at [64]-[66]. 122 Tairāwhiti MB 202 [35] There are also 5 owners out of 25 owners supporting the application amounting to 20% of owners. [36] There are also five out of 25 owners opposed to the application, holding...

5. Potaka - Lots 37-49 DP 34051 Waipapa 1J5 (2008) 216 Aotea MB 266 (216 AOT 266) [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...the Act declaring the applicants owners in the land in equal shares. Therefore, the land has the status of Maori freehold land today. For completeness I note that if those orders were to be disturbed then three options were available: rehearing, appeal or revIew. [12] It is undisputed that the land acquired from the Crown for public works was Maori freehold land. It is also not in dispute that there was no condition in the agreement between the Crown and the applicants as to the sta...

6. A-Certificate-of-Approval-Application-form_2024.pdf [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...section 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, or an earlier equivalent provision?  Yes  No Have you ever been ordered by a New Zealand court to be imprisoned following conviction for an offence and that conviction or order has not been quashed on appeal?  Yes  No In the last 7 years, have you ever been convicted by a New Zealand court of an offence under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 or Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 for...

7. Carroll - Himatangi 7 Block (2017) 369 Aotea MB 107 (369 AOT 107) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...beneficiaries. (3) The court shall not appoint any individual or body to be a trustee of any trust constituted under this Part unless it is satisfied that the proposed appointee consents to the appointment. [32] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal stated: 13 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In considering those issues, the Court will n...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Gardner [2017] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...required is "more than" mere negligence (noting that mere negligence may now meet the s 214(b) test for unacceptable conduct). Section 214(c) in the Act is equivalent to ss 106(3)(c) and 112(1)(c) of the 1982 Act. I repeat what the Court of Appeal said in the Auckland W of what was then s 112(1)(c) negligence: [41] ... It is common ground that not every act of negligence will be such as to warrant disciplinary action. That is plain from the use of the words "of such a d...

9. BU v YA LCRO 153 / 2010 (21 April 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...the Committee does not understand the law. [19] He considers that in evaluating the complaint concerning the lodgement of the Notice of Claim, the Committee has applied the wrong test. He refers to a decision of Simperinghan v Martin (Court of Appeal) Wellington, CA 5/95, 2 June 1995. He notes that the requirement established by this case is that before lodging a caveat, a solicitor must have an “honest belief” that there is a registrable interest. [20] With regard to the ma...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 154 Webb v NZ Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Inc [pdf, 101 KB]

    ...6 [1998] 2 NZLR 103 (HC) at 107. 7 [2006] NZAR 247 (HC). 8 [2004] 17 PRNZ 390 (CA). [23] There are, however, good reasons why caution should be shown about entertaining a moot appeal. The assumption which underpins our legal system is that legal propositions are best developed by the Courts in the context of real controversies. The facts and apparent merits of particular cases are not necessarily controlling consi