Search Results

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution: general civil cases [pdf, 675 KB]

   ...face-to-face interview was not possible, members of the judiciary were offered the option of a telephone interview. In total, interviews were completed with nineteen District Court Judges, eight High Court Judges, four Masters and one Court of Appeal Judge. One High Court Judge, three District Court Judges and one Master were unable to be interviewed within the research timetable due to other commitments. In addition to the individual interviews, the research team also spoke with the...

2. LCRO 88/2022 GX v EJ (2 April 2024) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...[Law Firm B]’s response will be referred to as necessary in this decision. Nature and scope of review [70] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:28 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 invo...

3. LCRO 100/2021 QT v Righteous Law Ltd (21 June 2022) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...correct. They provide an expert’s opinion from Mr BF in support of the respondent. Nature and scope of review [36] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:17 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. I...

4. Pirikahu v Hohaia - Awanui Haparapara No 1 (2021) 253 Waiariki MB 112 (253 WAR 112) [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...the block order file, list of owners and memorial schedule all 5 Deputy Registrar v Graham – Parehuia June Durie Kaitiaki Trust (2015) 334 Aotea MB 201 (334 AOT 201) 6 Nicholas v Gibbons - Poike 8E [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 68 (2019 APPEAL 68) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed81a8262f_241_25_se&p=1&id=DLM291293#DLM291293 253 Waiariki MB 118 record the trust as still in existence. Mr Koning argued an...

5. Directory of Official Information 2019 A-C [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...Consent Authorities • Physical Sciences • Medical Testing • Metrology and Calibration • Radiology Services. Chairpersons of each PAC are members of the Accreditation Advisory Committee (AAC). The AAC and/or the Council may adjudicate any appeals arising from IANZ accreditations. Records Records are maintained on client registrations, assessments, reports and correspondences. A directory of IANZ accreditations is maintained and made available for public viewing on www.ian...

6. W and W v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2020] CEIT-2020-0020 [pdf, 549 KB]

   ...conclusive if a reasonable person would conclude that such a meaning would be anomalous or “uncommercial” and cannot have been intended by the parties.4 [16] The position in New Zealand, however, appears to be less liberal, with the Court of Appeal in Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd expressing support for the comment made by the majority of the Supreme Court in Firm Pi 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd that:5 where contractual language, viewed in the context of the whole con...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 159 Franix Construction Ltd v Tozer [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...That judgment is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case and, if anything, reaffirms the judicial observation that such cases are “intensely factual” and determined accordingly. 6 [45] The earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal in Telecom South Ltd v Post Office Union (Inc) 7 was referred to in the judgment in Ross-Taylor. Telecom South supports Mr Tozer’s position on the strongest argument for Franix addressing the remuneration arrangements in this case...

8. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...essentially supervisory and I think that the responsibility should be treated as being significantly less than that of the principal author of the damage. 6.5 In the case of Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 the Court of Appeal considered a similar situation, where the owner of a defective building succeeded against the builder and the local authority. The Court apportioned responsibility between these two defendants as 80% to the Builder and 20% to the...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 74 NZ Aluminimum Smelters Ltd v Weller Ors [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...intention which they clearly could not have had. The natural and ordinary meaning should not lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense. [32] I acknowledge Mr Jagose’s submission that this summary was adopted by the Court of Appeal in the context of construing an employment agreement.8 5 At [19]. That must 6At [23]. 7At [61] citing Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (No 1) [1998]...

10. [2024] NZEmp 56 KiwiRail Ltd v Rail & Maritime Transport Union Inc [pdf, 303 KB]

    ...achieved if it “borrows” from the additional holidays that Mr Beazley and Mr Hawkins have earned. In both cases they have enhanced entitlements because of their long service and shift work. The approach being adopted draws on the Court of Appeal decision in New Zealand Fire Service Commission v New Zealand Professional Fire Fighters Union.13 In that case, the majority took the view that a period of time when fire fighters were 12 Section 12(3)(b). 13 New Zealand Fire Ser...