Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...2022 was relied upon, but this was later amended to 21 March 2022, being four weeks after the letter of termination was sent. 6 See for example Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [28]–[30]. This point was not challenged on appeal. 7 Pike v Nelmac Ltd [2024] NZERA 461 (Member Beck). 8 At [40]–[43]. 9 New Zealand Automobile Assoc Inc v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622 (EmpC). than that alleged.10 It was also suggested that s 34 may be used to consider the...

2. Hawira v Pomana - Succession to Te Au Pomana [2024] Chief Judge's MB 2004 (2024 CJ 2004) [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:13 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the...

3. [2024] NZREADT 41 – CAC 2103 v Jones Lang Laselle Ltd (29 October 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the Act and the Audit Regulations by failing to record funds in the trust ledger and reconcile accounts. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of $7,500. [42] They also referred to the case of Burnett v Real Estate Agents Authority,8 where Mr Burnett appealed against the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct under s 72 of the Act. Mr Burnett’s agency had failed to comply with reg 15 of the Audit Regulations. Mr Burnett had failed to send reconciliations for almost every mont...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 15 TradeZone Industrial Group Ltd v Stanton [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...entered into the settlement agreement if it had been aware of the alleged breaches, s 149(3)(ab) of the Act states the terms of a settlement agreement may not be cancelled under ss 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The Court of Appeal made obiter remarks on that provision in TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force:7 We note in passing that s 149(3)(ab) may have the surprising, and presumably unintended, consequence of preventing cancellation of a settlement ag...

5. Harrison - Succession to Mere Ngamai [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1334 (2025 CJ 1334) [pdf, 773 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [11] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the c...

6. Tehei - Succession to Taiparoro Hiririni [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1356 (2025 CJ 1356) [pdf, 819 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [17] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:4 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the co...

7. Speaking about cultural background at sentencing: section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...sentenced. What little use there was of the provision appeared to be concentrated in a few courts. There has been little information collected about the use and effect of section 16 since this study. 1.4 Interpretation of section 16 A judgement of the Appeal Court in 19877 has provided significant interpretation of section 16. In the District Court, the appellant had applied under section 16 for members of Mätua Whängai to be able to address the Court. The District Court Judge had held t...

8. [2016] NZEnvC 051 Craddock Farms Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: Decision [2016] NZEnvC C->5\ ENV-2015-AKL- 000039 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN CRADDOCK FARMS LIMITED Appellant AND THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge C J Thompson Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Deputy Environment Commissioner D A Kernohan Hearing: at Auckland 26,27, 30 November, 1,3 December 2015 Site inspections 2 December 2015 Final submissions 9 February 201...

9. [2022] NZEnvC 060 Eden-Epsom Residential Protection Society Inc v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...April 2022 _________________________________________________________________ DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE A: Request for plan change refused. B: Costs reserved REASONS Introduction The Society had appealed a decision of a majority of independent hearing commissioners approving Proposed Private Plan Change 21 (PPC21) to the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part (AUP). The plan change was to enable expansion and intensification of deve...

10. LCRO 40/2023 DG v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (13 March 2024) [pdf, 497 KB]

    ...review generally [56] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...