Search Results

1. [2023] NZREADT 14 - CAC 2107 v Sheldon (13 June 2023) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...submissions are to be filed and served by 5 July 2023. Mr Sheldon’s submissions are to be filed and served by 19 July 2023. [74] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [75] Having regard to the privacy of the prospective purchaser and the building inspector, as well as the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal, it is appropriate to order publica...

2. Dr Roger Grace - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 667 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act TRUSiEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR ROGER GRACE ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST DateQ 25 October 2017 Counsel Acting RB Enright Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House 28 Customs St...

3. Scott v Hori - Estate of Wharepouri Paoro [2018] Chief Judge's MB 871 (2018 CJ 871) [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...order was made or through submissions on the law. Issues [18] The issues to determine in this case are: 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 3 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 887 (a) Should Jerry Herewini Hori have been included in the vesting order made under s 81A?; and if so (b) Was the order complained of erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omiss...

4. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v TCLE-A-T5877102 [2013] NZCOP 2 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...and that it must consider the three matters listed at subcl.(3)(a) – (c) of the Regulation. The Tribunal now turns to consider each of those matters. Regulation 12(3)(a) – the flagrancy of the Infringement [71] The New Zealand Court of Appeal has addressed the meaning of “flagrancy” of copyright infringement, in the context of the making of “additional damages” awards under s.121(2) of the Copyright Act 1994.3 Those cases show that “flagrant” copyright infring...

5. LCRO 208/2021 PK v GH (13 June 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...that she “was happy to withdraw” from any involvement with this review.21 Nature and scope of review [72] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:22 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 inv...

6. Directory of Official Information A-C [pdf, 1.5 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...

7. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...the fifth amended statement of claim but interestingly, despite the extraordinary time spent on the documents, the drafters failed to correct an error in the pleadings (which was an oddly expressed clause). They also did not pick up a Court of Appeal decision directly on point and delivered one week before the filing of this document. 23 [101] The costs revisors were highly critical of this process which involved 12 drafts of the fifth amended statement of claim. It was...

8. AW v ZK LCRO 230/2012 (28 March 2014) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...two costs assessors that the fee invoices did not amount to overcharging.9 [16] I am not constrained or limited in the scope of my review by the decision of the Standards Committee. The review jurisdiction of this Office is broader than an appeal and it gives the Review Officer a discretion concerning the approach to be taken on any particular review. The Review Officer must come to his or her own decision.10 Review jurisdiction – complaints concerning fee invoices pre-LCA...

9. RN v QW LCRO 226/2012 (8 September 2016) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...No. 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v P (2001) 18 PRNZ 760 (HC). and in particular the fact that “the discretion to omit fresh evidence should be sparingly used and not to provide litigants with an opportunity to bolster their case on appeal”. Counsel submits the evidence does not meet the test for “fresh evidence” for the reasons explained in the submissions. 15 [79] As to delay, the date of the conduct, 14 August 2009, is raised and the time the complaint and rev...

10. [2009] NZEmpC AC 30/09 Masonry Design Solutions Ltd v Bettany [pdf, 74 KB]

    ...test, in the alternative, as whether the employee engaged in the conduct in question knowing that it would cause loss to his or her employer. [52] This is a matter of foreseeability. In this jurisdiction the principle was re- stated by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 2 NZLR 342 at 361-362 as follows: The loss must be “sufficiently linked to the breach of the particular duty to merit recovery in all the circumstances” (McElroy Milne v Commercial Electron...