Search Results

1. Cheng v Serco New Zealand Limited [2025] NZHRRT 11 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...made against Mr Cheng. [49] However, there is no evidence that Serco’s failure in this regard had, or was likely to have had, any material impact on the outcome of Mr Cheng’s High Court litigation to date, nor on the outcome of subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal. We further note that there appears to be no mention of the matter having been raised by Mr Cheng in the related judgments or minutes of the courts that were put before the Tribunal.17 Nor do the costs orders a...

2. [2025] NZREADT 15 – UJ v REAA (19 May 2025) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...on an error of law or principle; (b) took account of irrelevant considerations; (c) failed to take account of a relevant consideration; or (d) was plainly wrong. Procedure [27] On 18 September 2024, the Tribunal issued Minute 1 directing the appeal be heard on the papers and setting a timetable for evidence and submissions. Minute 2 (30 October 2024) was issued setting a timetable for submissions on an interlocutory issue concerning redacted documents before the Registrar withh...

3. 20240923-Sentencing-Reform-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 5.7 MB]

   ...to be compelled to confess guilt, protected bys 25(d) of the Bill of Rights Act. A defendant may feel increased pressure to plead guilty at the first available opportunity in order to benefit from the maximum available discount. 29. The Court of Appeal in Hessell v R22 issued structured guidance on the maximum sentence reduction available for a guilty plea, largely based upon the time that a plea is entered. This was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court,23 which held that determ...

4. 20240923-Sentencing-Reform-Amendment-Bill-and-District-Court-Judges-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 5.7 MB]

   ...to be compelled to confess guilt, protected bys 25(d) of the Bill of Rights Act. A defendant may feel increased pressure to plead guilty at the first available opportunity in order to benefit from the maximum available discount. 29. The Court of Appeal in Hessell v R22 issued structured guidance on the maximum sentence reduction available for a guilty plea, largely based upon the time that a plea is entered. This was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court,23 which held that determ...

5. Hikaiti-Molloy v Hall - Succession to Timi Kaukau [2025] Chief Judge's MB 92 (2025 CJ 92) [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.7 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [14] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:8 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 court or the...

6. [2025] NZEmpC 147 Al-Bustanji v Corrections Assoc of New Zealand Inc (Interlocutory judgment (No 4) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...effectually dispose of the matter; (b) whether doing so is in accordance with the substantial merits and equities of the case; and (c) whether any terms ought to apply to any order made. [18] In Almond v Read,11 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in that case,12 confirming that the overarching consideration in relation to applications for leave out of time is the interests of justice.13 [19] In Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno,14 this Court confirmed tha...

7. Brown v Brown - Tuhuna 12A1 (2025) 292 Taitokerau MB 147 (292 TTK 147) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...principles concerning the grant of a permanent injunction are summarised in the Māori Appellate Court decision of Meroiti v Meroiti:3 2 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club – Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block (2014) Māori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60). 3 Meroiti v Meroiti [2025] Māori Appellate Court MB 142 (2025 APPEAL 142) at [32]. 292 Taitokerau MB 154 (a) The Court must be satisfied that the grant of the injunction will not cause disproportionate hardship. (b) The...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v H [2013] NZLCDT 7 [pdf, 222 KB]

   SUPPRESSION ORDER MADE ON APPEAL NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZLCDT 7 LCDT 021/12 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 AND H CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr G McKenzie Ms C Rowe Ms S Sage Mr W Smith DATE OF HEARING at Auckland 28 February 2013 APPEARANCES Mr L Clancy for...

9. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2019] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...conduct and thus this question would be answered affirmatively. Issue 3 – Continuation of Interim Suppression Order [45] We accept the submission of both counsel that wider publication ought not to occur until the trial is concluded and all appeal rights exhausted. When there is an adverse finding about a practitioner’s conduct involving the media the Tribunal should be careful to protect against its decision repeating the conduct until the matters of concern are concluded....

10. [2007] NZEmpC AC 10/07 X v Auckland DHB [pdf, 338 KB]

    X V AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD AK AC 10/07 23 FEBRUARY 200 23 February 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 10/07 ARC 52/05 IN THE MATTER OF Personal grievances removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN X Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Defendant Hearing: 7-11 and 14-16 November 2005 20-21 December 2005 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Penelope Swarbrick and Kelly Rowell, Counsel for Plaintiff Bernard Banks and