Search Results

1. Oneroa v Kerehoma - Okahukura 8M 2C 2A 2A (2019) 401 Aotea MB 35 (401 AOT 35) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or [16] There is no express mention in s 222 of specific disqualifying factors, such as criminal convictions, for a nominated trustee. The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the appointment of trustees. In that case the Court confirmed that, invariably, the views of the owners will be compelling, unless there are relevant disqualifying consideration...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 142 Gisborne District Council v O'Connell [pdf, 664 KB]

   ...original situation; • Over the period 17 September 2014 until 17 February 2017, the Council had served parking infringement notices, resource management infringement notices and an abatement notice on Mr O'Connell. Mr O'Connell has not appealed the abatement notice nor contested any of the infringement notices, nor paid any of the infringement fees; • A feature highlighted in Mr Dobbie's affidavit was threatening and abusive conduct on Mr O'Connell's p...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 46 Davidson v Great Barrier Airlines Ltd [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...Milne [2012] NZEmpC 25 at [29]; 5 Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 6 and High Court Rules 2016, r 5.45(2). [15] There is a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the overall exercise. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd 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 o...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 227 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...“exceptional circumstances” in ss 114 and 115 of the Act. The Court preferred, as a meaning for those words, “unusual” (or as being the “exception to the rule”) and, in so doing, partially overturned the two formulations given by the Court of Appeal in Wilkins & Field v Fortune [1998] 2 ERNZ 70 (CA). “Unusual” was preferred by the Supreme Court because it accorded with common English usage and was easier to apply than any alternative. [13] Ms Wills...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 171 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...which a party can seek the Authority/Court’s intervention to remedy perceived deficiencies. These routes have been carefully constructed and do not provide options that can be selected from at will. Rather the ability to pursue a challenge, appeal, judicial review and a re- hearing are largely engaged at different times and in differing circumstances. It is, for example, unusual for the Authority to grant an application to reopen in circumstances where a challenge under s 179 co...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2019] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 132 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZLCDT 28 LCDT 004/19 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 Applicant AND BOON GUNN HONG Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall (retired) MEMBERS Mr S Hunter Mr D Scott Ms P Walker Mr I Williams DATE OF HEARING 30 September 2019 HELD AT Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre, Auckland DATE OF DECISION 11 October 2019 C

7. Memorandum of counsel for Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency 30 April 2020 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...supporting the Te Āpiti Trustees since summer 2018, including involving them in Project design workshops. (c) Five such submitters – DOC, Forest & Bird, QEII, Meridian, and Tararua District Council – were involved in subsequent designation appeals to this Court. Counsel for the Transport Agency have kept counsel for those submitters advised of the proposed timetable for this direct referral process. (d) All submitters wishing to be heard have long had the ability to take...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 140 ITE v ALA [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...principle was narrowly stated, on the basis that a man cannot be made “the confidant of a crime or a fraud” … it is now clear that the principle extends to matters of which disclosure is required in the public interest … [63] The Court of Appeal has put it in this way:9 What has been called ever since Gartside v Outram (1857) … the defence of iniquity, is an instance, and probably the prime instance, of the principle that the law will not protect confidential informat...

9. Maritime Powers Bill [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...to deterrence. 29. Clause 43(2) provides that usual due process related to forfeited goods, as set out in the Customs and Excise Act 2018, applies to ships seized under the Bill. This provides the owners of seized ships with the usual options for appeal in cases where owners believe a ship has been wrongfully seized. 30. The approach taken to seizure in the Bill is not unusual, and such legislation is commonly, and necessarily, far-reaching in other comparable jurisdictions.11 It is rea...

10. Data and Statistics Bill [pdf, 276 KB]

    ...requiring the Crown to prove the opposite; and, c. the penalty for the offence is proportionate to the importance of the Bill’s objective. Infringement offences 35. Although infringement offences do not result in a conviction11, the Court of Appeal in Henderson v Director, Land Transport New Zealand held that the rights in ss 24 and 25 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to minor offences dealt with under the infringement notice regime.12 36. Although we recognise this is not strictl...