Search Results

1. Paerau v Bailey - Kauaeroa (2021) 440 Aotea MB 262 (440 AOT 262) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...indirectly affects any contract in which that person may be interested or concerned other than as a trustee of another trust. [18] The leading authorities on the issues of conflicts of interest are the decisions Naera v Fenwick in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court judgment Fenwick v Naera.3 Those decisions are authority for the proposition that a trustee must bring a mind unclouded by external or personal considerations when making decisions as a trustee. Put another way, a...

2. B Tarrant Memo Chief Coroner 02-11-21-V2 [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...disproportionately severe treatment or punishment. 10. By this, he means he was subject to inhuman or degrading treatment whilst on remand, which prevented a fair trial. 11. Counsel is conscious of the major distress such an exercise of his right to appeal may have on the “victims” families, and many parts of society. 12. Nevertheless, carrying out client’s instructions is every barrister’s duty, and whilst this case is likely to be the pinnacle of professional difficulty, ev...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 144 Crossen v Yangs House Ltd [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...of 1 or more issues on which the aided person fails: (e) any unreasonable refusal to negotiate a settlement or participate in alternative dispute resolution: (f) any other conduct that abuses the processes of the court. [10] The Court of Appeal has held that in considering s 45(3) the circumstances said to be exceptional must be “quite out of the ordinary”.4 [11] Mr Brown relied on s 45(3)(a) and (d); that is, a claim that there was conduct that caused the other party to i...

4. Pocock - Allotment 246D1 Waimana Parish (2020) 231 Waiariki MB 273 (231 WAR 273) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...However, there is consolation in the fact that the land does remain Māori freehold land and will, if put up for sale again, be offered back to the whānau. 8 Karena v Whitefield – Omahu 4C Section 6 [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 170 (2018 APPEAL 170). 231 Waiariki MB 279 [27] Given the findings above, the Court makes the following order: (i) pursuant to ss 151,152 and 155(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, the Court confirms the instrument of alienation...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 126 Henderson Travels Ltd v Kaur [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...fails.5 [19] The discretion is broad but must be exercised in the interests of justice. The interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise in weighing up those interests was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:6 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantia...

6. LCRO 4/2021 RQ v WJ (9 February 2022) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Service [16] The role of this Office is to carry out a review of Standards Committee determinations. [17] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:10 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 involv...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 163 Matajod v Crazy Horse Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...Supreme Court’s observation that “the merits will not generally be relevant where there has been an insignificant delay as a result of a legal adviser’s error and the proposed respondents have suffered no prejudice (beyond the fact of an appeal)”.8 I have already found that the delay was not insignificant; it was not the result of a legal adviser’s error; and if leave is granted to pursue a challenge, Ms Matajod will be exposed to prejudice. [17] The merits of the propo...

8. Paerata v George -Tuaropaki A (Mokai Marae) (2022) 284 Waiariki MB 76 (234 WAR 76) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...that the house belongs to the Mokai Marae Trust. 12 Tihi v Nuku — Ruatoki B Sections 23, 25, 26B, 27, 31, 32, 33B2C2, 38 and 79 and Ruatoki C Sections 11, 12, 15, 17, 18B2, 21, 22B, 23 (Aggregated) [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 531 (2019 APPEAL 531) at [25]. 13 Tihi v Nuku at [25]. 284 Waiariki MB 82 I whakapuaki i te 10:00am i Rotorua, te tuawha o ngā rā o Noema i te tau 2022. C T Coxhead JUDGE

9. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...While the two provisions contain different criteria, the authorities relating to r 4.56 and the general principles developed in the High Court may provide useful guidance to inform the exercise of the discretion under s 221.6 [12] The Court of Appeal has observed that the approach to applications for joinder under r 4.56 is liberal and that it imposes a fairly low threshold.7 As has been noted 4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 221(a). 5 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland R...

10. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Persson [2024] NZLCDT 2 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...undertaken. [17] Ms Town for the Standards Committee refers us to the decision of Davidson 6 to support the proposition that only suspension will provide a satisfactory response to offending at this level. In that case, Mr Davidson was suspended on appeal for a period of nine months. By way of comparison, the nature of the offending was different and, in that case, Mr Davidson had been sentenced to nine months home detention, 200 hours of community work and reparation of $500,000....