Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 80 Tomo v Checkmate Precision Cutting [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...the threshold test in r 5.45(1) has been met and, if so, how the Court’s discretion should be exercised under r 5.45(2). [11] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case. As the Court of Appeal observed in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 4 [15] 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 for s...

2. CAC20003 v Cooper [2013] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...the requirements of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (or any successor legislation) and its regulations as the then Registrar of the Authority may direct. [19] 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 ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Mr...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 53 O’Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...incurred actual costs of $16,974. [4] I turn to consider whether costs of that magnitude were reasonable. In relation to this issue Mr O’Hagan submits that the defendant has failed to provide details of the costs incurred. However, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that it is not mandatory for counsel to provide details of time involved and charge out rates when seeking costs. In Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd it was observed that: 3 Obviously this kind of information may h...

4. Koria & Anor v Johnson & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 21 [pdf, 58 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000049 [2013] NZWHT AUCKLAND 21 BETWEEN GEORGE-HUCH FIFITAILA KORIA AND ELIZABETH SISAVAI’I LAVA Claimants AND STEPHEN DAVID JOHNSON First Respondent (Removed) AND ROB WOODGER LIMITED (Struck off) Second Respondent (Removed) AND ROBERT CHARLES WOODGER Third Respondent AND NICHOLAS PETER SIMMONS Fourth Respondent (Removed) AND MARK HARDY Fifth Respondent AND TAYLOR FASCIA (AUC

5. Croft v Hing - Motatau 5E14B3B (2017) 162 Taitokerau MB 155 (162 TTK 155) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...when she met with Court staff on 11 November 2016. She argues this caused the delay in filing the application. 4 Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012 APPEAL 1). 5 Ibid. 6 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 43(5). 162 Taitokerau MB 158 [13] The Court file shows that minutes from the final hearing were not distributed until 18 November 2016. There is nothing to suggest that Mrs...

6. BORA Judicial Retirement Age Bill [pdf, 287 KB]

   ..."... not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant." 6. The Court of Appeal has discussed the question of justification on several occasions.[2] Broadly, the Court's approach requires consideration of three questions: 6.1 What objective is Parliament endeavouring to achieve by the provision limiting the ri...

7. BORA Health and Safety Reform Bill [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...otherwise. Section 21 protects against activities constituting a “search or seizure” that are “unreasonable” in the circumstances. A request for information or documents constitutes a search for the purposes of s 21. 1 7. The Court of Appeal stated that the main aim of s 21 is to protect privacy interests 2: It is only where a person's reasonable expectations of privacy have been breached that a personal remedy under the Bill of Rights ... is available. The reasonable...

8. BORA Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...options other than prosecution in attempting to get a person to comply with a community-based sentence or instruction, and when that person has in fact breached or failed to comply with that sentence or instruction. b. Although there is no right to appeal, the Department must issue two written warning notices before they can instruct the Ministry to withhold the benefit and an affected beneficiary may bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the Department’s decisions. 19....

9. EGX v BSL [2011] NZIACDT 17 (6 July 2011) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...information which identifies either the Complainant or the Adviser will be removed, and the decision will be published in that form. That direction will reserve the right for any party to apply for a different order in a particular case. [19] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538, 546 per Cooke P said in relation to the question of name suppression: “The starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings and the r...

10. XX v UW LCRO 185/14 (12 June 2015) [pdf, 29 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 Hearing [8] Mr XX attended a review hearing in [City] on 25 May 20...