Search Results

1. Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Analysis of Replacement Regimes [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...within the foreshore and seabed area; the jurisdiction of the High Court and Māori Land Court over the public foreshore and seabed; and the treatment of customary rights and interests. 7 The 2004 Act was, in part, a response to the Court of Appeal’s decision Attorney- General v Ngāti Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) (the Ngāti Apa decision) which decided, amongst other things, that: customary title over the foreshore and seabed, if any, had not necessarily been extinguished by cert...

2. O'Connell & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...September 2010. 6 Askin v Knox [1989] 1 NZLR 248 (CA). Page | 20 Council officer’s conduct will be judged against the knowledge and practice at the time at which the negligent act or omission was said to take place. [79] The Court of Appeal in Byron Avenue7 accepted that the Council owed a duty of care in its inspections even before the final inspection issuing a Code Compliance Certificate. It stated: [59] I consider that the Hamlin principle imposes on councils i...

3. Directory of Official Information 2019 V-Z [pdf, 775 KB]

   ...eligible qualifying service. The Panel comprises an employee of the New Zealand Defence Force and a representative of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The Minister for Veterans appoints the: Veterans’ Entitlements Appeal Board which determines appeals of review decisions veterans and other claimants disagree with. This board consists of not more than four members of which one must be a lawyer who has at least seven years standing, and two 4 mus...

4. King v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...21(h). Claustrophobia is undisputedly a disability for the purposes of the HRA. [11] What amounts to discrimination contrary to NZBORA, s 19 is not defined in the HRA but has been judicially determined. That test is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 (Atkinson) at [55], [109] and [135]–[136]: [11.1] First, there must be differential treatment or effects as between persons or groups in analogous or comparable s...

5. Witana v Tau - Omapere Taraire E (2019) 191 Taitokerau MB 1 (191 TTK 1) [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...for in the Act, the Trustee Act 1956 and the Reservation Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance. [19] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held:4 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of the bus...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 36 Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...the Environment, ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign [1996] 3 All ER 304 (QB). standard of neutrality, or appearance of neutrality, advocated for on behalf of the plaintiff applies in the disciplinary context. [47] As the Court of Appeal observed in Marlborough Girls’ College v Sutherland: 16 [24] This case highlights the problems of applying statements of principle of bias developed in relation to courts, tribunals and other bodies which operate independently...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 192 Johnson v Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force [pdf, 394 KB]

   ...allows an employee to bring a personal grievance if the employee’s employment, or one or more conditions thereof, is, or are, affected to the employee’s disadvantage by some unjustifiable action by the employer. [73] In 1989, the Court of Appeal was required to consider in Alliance Freezing Company (Southland) Ltd v New Zealand Engineering Workers etc Union whether the action involved had caused some material or financial loss.2 That court held that such a restriction was not...

8. Bacic v Tulip Holdings Limited (in liq) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...Ultimately, a judicial value judgement is required to determine whether a factual finding of a nexus between act or omission and loss translates into a legal responsibility for a defendant to compensate a plaintiff. In Johnson v Watson,8 the Court of Appeal held that a causal nexus was required between substantial and material cause and the loss suffered: see also Price Waterhouse v Kwan,9 In that context, ‘substantial’ means more than trivial or de minimis. ‘Material’ mean...

9. Contract-for-services.pdf [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...of the Act) 3.10.3. that a court has made an order relating to costs under section 45 of the Act, and 3.10.4. of any matter that materially decreases the prospects of success of the aided person’s matter at first instance, or the merits of any appeal. 3.11. Sub-clause 3.10.4 does not apply to defence of criminal charges at first instance. 3.11.A The Provider must immediately notify the Commissioner a soon as they become aware of a privacy breach (as defined in clause 3.22 of this C...

10. Ryang v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 21 [pdf, 282 KB]

    ...is an experienced surveyor, and Mr Cartwright, who is an experienced builder and former building inspector, that the drawings were sufficient to allow a competent builder to complete a weathertight home satisfactorily. [80] The Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces upheld Heath J’s conclusions that designers in preparing plans are entitled to assume that a reasonable builder would have access to and rely on 21 See...