Search Results

1. CAC 20007 v Marshall [2013] NZREADT 101 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...identified by the auditor as very likely not genuine. This gives Mr Marshall the benefit of the doubt regarding the remaining $6,708.09 of suspected expenses. [58] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________...

2. Geldenhuys v C Yap [2013] NZIACDT 42 (15 July 2013) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [81] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Inglis in Liu: [10] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties are to be carefully weighed. The balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd 8 as follows: The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order...

4. Penny v Kemp - Estate of Bill Kingi or Wiremu Parata Kingi [2017] Chief Judge's MB 257 (2017 CJ 257) [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...was made. The applicant has met the standard of proof necessary and in my view 6 Tau v Nga Whanau o Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2017 Chief Judge’s MB 267 it is in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission by amending and cancelling the relevant orders. Conclusion [17] An order under s 45 is a discretionary measure. I...

5. [2017] NZEmpC 149 P v A [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...He relied upon the decisions of Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue2 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd.3 In respect of the Muir decision, P quoted the following passage in the Court of Appeal’s judgment: [61] In our view, the correct enquiry is a two stage one. First, it is necessary to establish the actual circumstances which have a direct bearing on a suggestion that the judge was or may be seen to be biased. This fact...

6. AM v AN LCRO 69/2013 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [29] The question on review is whether there is any good rea...

7. Holden —Nga Taonga Tuturu (2010) 245 Aotea MB 230 (245 AOT 230) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Maori Land Court has jurisdiction under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section. (4) To avoid doubt, section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and any other relevant provision in that Act, applies to any claim for ownership or any appeal lodged under this Act. Discussion [19] The evidence is uncontested that the five artefacts are tāonga tūturu and accordingly, a determination is made pursuant to s 12(1)(a) of the Protected Objects Act 1975. Pumice...

8. Peita - Panguru C27A2 (2015) 104 Taitokerau MB 5 (104 TTK 5) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...87; and Reid v Kaiwaitau (2006) 34 Gisborne Appellate Court MB 168 (34 APGS 168) See in particular the discussion in the context of partitions (which involves the same test) in Whaanga v Niania – Anewa [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) and Whaanga v Smith [2015] NZCA 121and my decision in the context of occupation orders in Bhana v Paniora – Wairau North 1B2C (2013) 69 Taitokerau MB 139 (69 TTK 139). 104 Taitokerau MB 14 (a) To ascertain and give...

9. CAC 10073 v Cho [2013] NZREADT 93 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory conduct. 11 [48] Accordingly, we simply record that we have found the defendant guilty of unsatisfactory conduct on each charge. [49] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms C...

10. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [94] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...