Search Results

1. LCRO 120/2021 SB v KR (3 August 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...Committee and I have not found it necessary to make any further enquiry of him. Nature and scope of review [29] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It...

2. Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...things, there are no statutory restraints of a person’s movements (accompanied by penalties for non-compliance).14 The existing breath-screening test (in relation to alcohol) is considered by the courts to amount to a detention.15 37. The Court of Appeal has held that a detention may be "arbitrary if it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures”.16 38. Unde...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 233 Wellington Regional Council v Crosbie [pdf, 489 KB]

   ...Britton and Mr Garden for the Greater Wellington Regional Council. 3. As a result of the determination, the District Court made orders: (a) Prohibiting Mr Page and Ms Crosbie from commencing or continuing any activities that are not permitted by the Appeals Version of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (pNRP) for the Wellington Region and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (and any subsequent versions of or successors to either document) within the wetlands at 127...

4. PSPLA - Form D: Application for a Company Licence [pdf, 819 KB]

   ...section 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, or an earlier equivalent provision?  Yes  No Have you ever been ordered by a New Zealand court to be imprisoned following conviction for an offence and that conviction or order has not been quashed on appeal?  Yes  No In the last 7 years, have you ever been convicted by a New Zealand court of an offence under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 or Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 for...

5. Gilvray v Rungarunga - Succession to Tamati Rungarunga [2023] Chief Judge's MB 551 (2023 CJ 551) [pdf, 319 KB]

   ...the order or certificate of confirmation or make such other order or issue such certificate of confirmation as, in the opinion of the Chief Judge, is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission. [35] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:5 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 court or...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 6 Green v Transpacific Industries Group NZ Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...injunction for the relatively short balance of the restraint than that the defendant should be required to prove its loss and damages at trial. [37] Ultimately, this Court must take appropriate cognisance of the clear signal given by the Court of Appeal in Fuel Espresso v Hsieh 2 that not only are such provisions to be taken seriously by the parties that have entered into them expressly but that they are amenable to enforcement by injunction to the extent that they are reasonable a...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 188 Hook v Stream Group (NZ) Pty Ltd [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...Commission. 6 [2010] FWA 7358 at [52]. 7 [2012] FWAFB 7097. offensive so as to validate dismissal and that the employer had no social media policy in place. [34] In upholding the decision of the Commissioner (on the limited grounds of appeal available under the Fair Work Act), the full bench made the following apposite comments: 8 The posting of derogatory, offensive and discriminatory statements or comments about managers or other employees on Facebook might...

8. Kemp - Otairi B2B (2010) 8 Taitokerau MB 216 (8 TTK 216) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...matter. What matters is that the PCA retain the opportunity to acquire Maori freehold land that is either currently owned by Maori or which was formerly owned by Maori. [43] In any event, the High Court’s comment is at odds with the Court of Appeal’s view. In Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc [1997] 3 NZLR 641 at 650 to 651 the Court observed: While no one can be absolutely excluded as a possible purchaser of Māori freehold land, the 1993 Act imposes a significant barrier on alienat...

9. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 2688 [2013] NZCOP 13 [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...holder, not the general public. [51] The rights holder observed the similarity between this provision and s 121(2) dealing with flagrancy and similar considerations in assessing additional damages in other copyright cases. It referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Skids21 but the Tribunal does not find that of much assistance. In that case the court was able to consider factors such as the intention of the parties, their means, their conduct – none of which are available to...

10. Pope v Human Rights Commission (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 88 KB]

    ...may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just. (4) This rule does not affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction. [33] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd at [89] the Court of Appeal conveniently explained these different grounds: [89] The grounds of strike out listed in r 15.1(1)(b)–(d) concern the misuse of the court’s processes. Rule 15.1(1)(b), which deals with pleadings that are likely to cause prejudice or...