Search Results

1. Pue – Te Ika a Maui, Te Ika a Ngahue (Te Waipounamu), Rakihura and Rekohu (2012) 295 Aotea MB 13 (295 AOT 13) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...Pue also sought a referral of the application to the Mäori Appellate Court per s60 of Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 by way of case stated. He argued that the significance of the claim was such that any decision of this Court would be subject to appeal and that, inter alia, the proceedings concerning the application would have the benefit of three judges including the Chief Judge or the Deputy Chief Judge. Submissions for the Crown [9] Counsel submitted that the Crown opposed the...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 213 Kirby v New Zealand China Friendship Society [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...have been “serious criminal activities, forged documents, theft, damaged property [and] fabricated certificates”. He says in effect that any order for costs is therefore inappropriate. Discussion [8] It is well established from Court of Appeal decisions that the Employment Court is required first to determine whether costs incurred by a successful party were reasonably incurred, and then after an appraisal of all relevant factors, decide at which level it is reasonable for t...

3. N v CAC 10058 [2012] NZREADT 18 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...that Ms N’s name and the name of the real estate agency and any other feature which might identify her are not published. 4 [9] The Tribunal draw the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act which contains the right to appeal this decision to the High Court. DATED at WELLINGTON this 24th day of April 2012 ______________________________ Ms J Robson Member ____________________________ Mr G Denley Member...

4. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [2010] NZWHT Wellington 17 [pdf, 73 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson & Ors as Trustees of the Picollo Trust – COSTS DECISION File No: TRI 2008-101-000052/ DBH 05463 Citation: [2010] NZWHT Wellington 17 Court: WHT Adjudicator: C Ruthe Date of Decision: 16 June 2010 Background This determination is based on applications filed by the first, second and seventh respondents for costs against the claimants pursuant to s91(1) of the 2006 Act. Applications fo

5. Beattie v Porirua City Council [2011] NZWHT Wellington 18 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...direct conflict in the evidence as to the responsibility of the various respondents. I am inclined to agree with Mr Robertson on this issue. There are still significant issues in dispute and this has resulted in three different parties filing appeals against the determination issued. [10] In these circumstances I consider that it is unlikely this claim would have settled at a subsequent mediation. Accordingly the costs that the claimants are seeking against the Council coul...

6. BORA State Sector Amendment Bill (No.3) [pdf, 19 KB]

   ...therefore considered whether the process for determining whether or not employees are on strike is consistent with the requirement to observe the principles of natural justice described in section 27 (1) of the Bill of Rights Act. 7. The Court of Appeal has stated that observance of the principles of natural justice is a flexible concept and is very much fact specific.[1] We note that the deeming provision helps to address the problem of geographical and organisational proximity. It is...

7. [2017] NZEnvC 203 Federated Farmers of New Zealand MacKenzie Branch v MacKenzie District Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEARAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC203 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals under clause 14(1) of the First Schedule to the Act FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND (INC) MACKENZIE BRANCH (ENV-2009-CHC-193) MOUNT GERALD STATION LIMITED (ENV-2009-CHC-181 ) MACKENZIE PROPERTIES LIMITED (ENV-2009-CHC-183) MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED AND GENESIS ENERGY LIMITED (ENV-2009-CHC-184) T...

8. Tamahata Incorporation v John Te Hiwi - Tamahata Incorporation (2010) 251 Aotea MB 5 (251 AOT 5) [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...HARVEY Introduction [1] By decision dated 1 February 2005, 148 Aotea MB 265, the application by John Te Hiwi to investigate the affairs of the Tahamata Incorporation was dismissed. Since then there have not been any applications for rehearing or appeal. [2] Mr Macdonald for the Incorporation now seeks costs from Mr Te Hiwi in the amount of $4,592.25 on a solicitor client basis. That application for costs was filed soon after judgment was issued in 2005. [3] For various reasons...

9. Auckland District Law Society v Dorbu [2009] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...of that judgment to means of the Registrar to the Auckland District Law Society for investigation were actions of the Judge acting in his judicial capacity and thus he cannot be compellable as a witness (Warren v Warren [1997] QB488 (Court of Appeal), Zanatta v McCleary [1976] 1 NSWLR 230). [18] The application for issue of a summons is declined. D F Clarkson Chair New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

10. Expression of interest: District Court Judge [docx, 27 KB]

    ...indicate, by ticking the boxes, the extent of your experience, both civil and criminal, in the following: Court Civil Criminal Details, including number of appearances Supreme Court |_| |_| ______________________________________ Court of Appeal |_| |_| ______________________________________ Court Civil Criminal Details, including total years’ experience High Court Appellant work |_| |_| ______________________________________ High Court |_|...