Search Results

1. CAC20004 v Whisker [2015] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...towards penalty whether by a further hearing about penalty or, by consent, with a series of succinct submissions about penalty on the papers. 16 [93] 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 ______________________________ Ms C...

2. AF v X Standards Committee LCRO 84/2014 [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...not desire that action be taken or, as the case may be, continued; or (e) the complainant does not have sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (f) there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise. (2) Despite anything in subsection (1), a Standards Committee ma...

3. Williams v Attorney-General [2024] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...provision as creating a “positive duty” to assist an individual to obtain their private information.10 In that case, the Tribunal had found that WINZ had breached s 38 as a particular staff member had not responded adequately to Mr Holmes. On appeal, the High Court emphasised that the assistance only has to be “reasonable” and that the standard should take into account the ability of the person seeking information to respond and also the context. 11 Submissions on reasonab...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 117 Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...7 (1992) 5 PRNZ 447. 8 (1996) 9 PRNZ 164. 9 At [38]. [33] Further, Judge Couch found that the conclusion in the City Realties case was inconsistent with a judgment of the Court of Appeal in D F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Ltd 10 where Hardie Boys J said: 11 The privilege attached to “without prejudice” communications is based to a large degree on considerations of public policy. It is intended t

5. [2021] NZEmpC 208 ABC v DEF [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...There are protections which may facilitate the process. First, confidentiality is provided for in s 148 of the Act. There have been many discussions as to the scope of the section. The leading case is Just Hotel Ltd v Jesudhass where the Court of Appeal remarked that the provision reflected “the desirability of encouraging the parties to a 27 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 188(2)(a) and (b). 28 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 188(2)(c). 29 FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 at [...

6. CAC304 v Morris [2016] NZREADT 4 [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...papers only. We direct the Registrar to now arrange a Directions Hearing by phone of counsel with our Chairperson to fix procedure to deal with penalty. [85] 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 ______________________________ Ms C...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ravelich [2011] NZLCDT 11 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...particular issue which could affect the standing of the legal profession, or which indicated a risk issue for a lawyer’s clients. 21 [75] Mr Ravelich has pleaded guilty to all of the charges. He did note the possibility of seeking leave to appeal out of time in respect of some of his convictions, but that process had not commenced at the time of hearing and we place no weight on that submission. Decision [76] Mr Ravelich has pleaded guilty to all charges. In doing s...

8. Head Heights Limited v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Honour was not required to resolve the question of whether a building consent could be obtained for targeted repairs. [29] The same question was considered recently by the High Court in Chee v Stareast Investment Limited.5 Chee involved an appeal from a 4 Body Corporate 185960 v North Shore City Council (Kilham Mews). 5 Chee v Stareast Investment Limited [2012] NZHC 133. Page | 10 decision by the Tribunal t...

9. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 408) v Nicholas Schembri, Joseph Lupi & Timothy Kearins [2017] NZREADT 24 [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...confirm to the Tribunal whether she is still seeking name suppression within 28 days. 21 (e) Until the Tribunal have submissions on name suppression the decision will not be published. [43] The Tribunal draws the parties attention to the appeal provisions of s. 116 Real Estate Agents Act. …………………………………………………………………. Ms KG Davenport QC Chairperson …………………………………�...

10. Hoban v Attorney-General [2022] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 161 KB]

    ...The good faith obligation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art 26 required no less. All this has been fully explained by the Tribunal in Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd at [115] to [140] and approved by the High Court on appeal in Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd at [16] and [23]. [53] The point made by the Attorney-General is that New Zealand has no treaty obligations which require the enactment of legislation prohibiting the advocacy or incitement of hatred or d...