Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 85 Agus Riyanto & 43 others v Dong Nam Company Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...efficient means of dealing with the preliminary issue of relevance. [15] Regulation 38 defines the term “relevance” as follows: 4 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand [2005] ERNZ 905 (EmpC); leave to appeal against that decision was refused in Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd CA 28/06, 23 June 2006. 5 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand (EmpC), above n 4 at [60]. (1) For the purposes of regulation 37 and regulations 40 to 52, a docume...

2. Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency 2023 NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19; and [21.2] Is not a justified limit under NZBORA, s 5. [22] The test for what amounts to a limit on the right to be free from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19 is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson.8 That test requires Mr Emet to prove the following in this case: [22.1] Firstly, that NZTA’s actions amount to differential treatment between him and those in an analogous or comparable situation on...

3. Audit Summary Report 2016-2017 [pdf, 433 KB]

   ...provided. Client communication is a similar area of difference between high and low rated files. Auditors expected reporting to the client to be completed after each event, and copies of signed instructions to be kept on file. For criminal files, appeal opportunities were expected in final reporting letters. While there are times where it is inappropriate to contain this information in writing, auditors were concerned that they were often required to guess if any communication had occur...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 085 Lee & Rochwalski v Buller District Council [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...Regional Council in 2010.14 The decision granting the resource consent (including any conditions of that consent) will be recognised as valid until it is set aside or amended by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 While the Environment Court hears appeals against decisions granting resource consents, the court does not have an inherent power to review the decision of the Regional Council to grant a water permit. Given the above, I decline to issue the summons sought. Report w...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 95 Strachan v Moodie [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...claim is also, however, to compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for non-economic loss. That is a remedy for a personal grievance that I now address. [128] The plaintiff seeks compensation of $30,000, a sum described by the Court of Appeal in 1995 as “a very high figure”: Trust Bank Wellington Ltd v Lavery. 10 That was, however, more than 15 years ago and other cases have established broader benchmarks since then. For example, in the constructive dismissal case o...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 015 Mawhinney v Auckland Council [pdf, 21 MB]

   ...Eyres Eco-Park Limited'" ("Eyres Eco-Park']. In that case there were three rules relevant to the claimed existing use: a 1988 rule, a 1995 rule , and a 2000 rule as described by O'Regan J giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The applicant at first instance, Eyres, claimed that44: . its existing use right is defined by reference to the use of the land and the effects of that use prior to the introduction of the 1988 rule . The council says that the exist...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 115 Auckland Council v KI Braines [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...Given the position now reached by the parties, the only remaining issue that I see outstanding in respect of Mr Braines' concerns in this light is what level of ongoing tenancy at the main house was envisaged. There was nothing in the abatement appeal order that identifies the issue of the use of the main house. Whether this was commented on in passing or not in 2013 is unclear at this stage. The agreement reached between the parties in 2018 was one simply recorded by the Court,...

8. Chief Executive, Ministry for Culture and Heritage - Tāonga Tūturu found at Plimmerton (2012) 283 Aotea MB 166 (283 AOT 166) [pdf, 202 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. [25] In addition to the decision cited earlier concerning a waka Tiwai, this Court has also considered claims to täonga tuturu from the west coast of the lower North Island in Hirini v Thomas.3...

9. Kokiri v Hori - Tahae Kunikuni Pekapeka Roberts and Te Tahi Francis Te Tapua Te Amo Roberts Whanau Trust (2016) 36 Te Waipounamu MB 151 (36 TWP 151) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...http://www.lexisnexis.com/nz/legal/search/enhRunRemoteLink.do?ersKey=23_T22319040467&backKey=20_T22319040468&homeCsi=274497&A=0.7328021198251591&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&dpsi=0069&remotekey1=REFPTID&refpt=1993A4S4:COURT&service=DOC-ID&origdpsi=0069 36 Te Waipounamu MB 162 (b) exercise its powers under section 244; or (c) terminate the trust if the Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient degree of support for termination among the beneficia...

10. Milner v Milner - Estate of Warihi Te Keu Faenza Milner (2008) 83 Ruatoria MB 108 (83 RUA 108) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

    ...Biddle OJ' WailllaJlia Holllm (2001) the Maori Appellate Court ruled that the relevant tikanga Maori that should be applied, is that of the iwi associated to the land33 In that case the Court considered the tikanga of Tuhoe to 33 10 Rotollla Appeal Minute Books 43-54 83 Ruatoria MB 118 ascertain whether a person was a whangai. It is this approach that should be applied in this case and the relevant tikanga is that of the hapu of Ngati Porou associated with the land. Discl...