Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 5 Hatcher v Burgess Crowley Civil Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...2 For example, Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2007] ERNZ 271 (EmpC) at [31]-[33]. 3 Bourne v Real Journeys Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 120, [2011] ERNZ 375 at [13]. 4 Udovenko v Offshore Marine Services (NZ) Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 174. Appeal that parties should have every opportunity to ensure that the real controversy goes to trial, enabling the just determination of the proceeding.5 [11] In that particular case, the Court was required to consider an application for leave...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 137 Sinton v Coatesville Motors 2013 Ltd [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...was observed by (now) Chief Judge Inglis, in Udovenko v Offshore Marine Services (NZ) Ltd, an overly technical approach is not to be taken on this issue, as this would enable form to trump substance. The Court referred to dicta of the Court of Appeal that parties should have every opportunity to ensure that the real controversy goes to trial, enabling the just determination of the proceeding. [11] In that particular case, the Court was required to consider an application for leav...

3. Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill.pdf [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Act; b. the use of force, in respect of the patient, must be reasonably necessary in the circumstances. This requires the use of force to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances as the intervener reasonably believed them to be. The Court of Appeal in R v Rosso noted that while there is an element of subjectivity (for example, there must be an actual belief), the test is objective.8 The purpose of the force will be to restrain the special patient and to ensure their safe transport...

4. Gill v Singh [2017] NZIACDT 5 (6 April 2017) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...incorrect advice as a result is not contested. This is not a case where a party has simply failed to call evidence that was available, and only chose to do so after an adverse result. The circumstances come within the general principles where an appeal or application for rehearing is allowed due to a fundamental error on the part of counsel. The misunderstanding regarding the right to silence, and the drawing of adverse inferences is quite different from the inevitable decisions that...

5. D v Secretary for Justice 25 September 2016 NZRA 001/2016 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...active involvement will encompass such steps as researching the law, interviewing witness, cross-examination, making submissions, making opening/closing addresses, appearing at sentence, and appearances in support of or in response to an appeal. Clause 4 (a) of the Schedule is directed to experience working on approval level 2 criminal proceedings. It is silent as to whether or not that experience has to be gained after an applicant has been approved as a provider of legal...

6. Tautari - Estate of Wairua Hinerupe Fairburn (2019) 200 Taitokerau MB 1 (200 TTK 1) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...Appointment of trustees [5] Section 222 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act sets out the relevant factors for the appointment of trustees to a trust constituted under Part 12 of the Act. [6] There are no specific disqualifying factors in s 222. The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees.2 In that case the Court confirmed that the views of the owners will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying considerations:...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 124 Kiwi Ink Construction Ltd v Hughes [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...costs is necessary. M E Perkins Judge Judgment signed at 12 noon on 23 October 2018 4 Hollinshead v Davey [2018] NZEmpC 116. 5 See, for example, Avery v No 2 Public Service Appeal Board [1973] 2 NZLR 86 (CA) at 91.

8. LCRO 211/2017 PD v OR and FX (16 October 2018) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...complained about advice provided to him in 2004 by Ms OR with regard to a contracting out agreement (the Agreement) pursuant to s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA).1 [2] Mr PD also complained about Mr FX, who acted for Mr PD on appeal to the High Court in 2017 after the Family Court had set the Agreement aside. [3] On receiving the complaint, the [Area] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) determined, pursuant to s 137(1)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act...

9. CAC 519 v Saxton [2019] NZREADT 44 (31 October 2019) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...pay a fine of $2,000.00. The fine is to be paid to the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [18] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ___________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ___________________ Ms C Sandelin Member...

10. Clarke - Poukawa Patangata Ahu Whenua Trust (2020) 86 Takitimu MB 52 (86 TKT 52) [pdf, 198 KB]

    ...have then resulted in the election of trustees who may not have held the complete supprot of the owners, it would appear that there was sufficient support for the nominees, taking into account the principles set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal Clarke v Karaitiana.5 In that case the Court confirmed that the views of the owners will be extremely important to the determination by this Court as to which nominees are the most appropriate for appointment: [51] The touchsto...