Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2018] NZLCDT 42 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...decisions to prosecute. [31] We accept that the unsatisfactory conduct found was at the higher level of culpability. [32] Section 249 provides the Tribunal with a broad discretion in awarding costs, as has been recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Lagolago v Wellington Standards Committee 2.3 [33] Further, the legislation provides that, even in a situation of full acquittal, there is a provision granting the Tribunal ability to award costs.

2. Seymour - Otonga 3 (2025) 99 Te Waipounamu MB 65 (99 TWP 65) [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...case says:2 In Brown v Māori Appellate Court, the High Court set out the approach to considering an application for partition. The approach has been adopted by this court, by the Māori Appellate Court, and recently endorsed by the Court of Appeal. The approach is helpfully summarised in Hammond – Whangawehi 1B 3H1: [15] The Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant partition orders in relation to Māori freehold land in accordance with Part 14 of the Act. That jurisdiction is...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 7 Alatipi v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

   WILLIE ALATIPI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 7 [5 February 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 7 WRC 12/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN WILLIE ALATIPI Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant Hearing: 1-5 and 23 September 2014 (heard at Wellington) Appe

4. Tucker & Ors as Trustees of the Ngahere Trust v Tucker [pdf, 256 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00540 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN GRAEME TUCKER and GLENYS TUCKER and STEPHEN SUDBURY as trustees of the Ngahere Trust Claimants AND ALLAN TUCKER First respondent (Intituling continued next page) Hearing: 13, 14 & 15 December 2004 Appearances: John Ross, counsel for the Claimants David Grindle, counsel for the First Respondent Roger Bowden, counsel for th

5. [2016] NZEmpC 65 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond [pdf, 418 KB]

   ...establish his business, and that there was no evidence that he fraudulently undermined or disclosed confidential information of Caffe Coffee, relying on the dicta of Walker v Aiken 3 and Schilling v Kidd Garrett Ltd. 4 [35] But as the Court of Appeal made clear in Big Save Furniture v Bridge, a duty of fidelity is not breached only when an employee acts fraudulently or dishonestly. 5 The Court confirmed that the duty of fidelity and loyalty which an employee owes to an employe...

6. [2019] NZEnvC 131 Minister for Children [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 131 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of a direct referral application under s 1988 of the Act for a notice of requirement to alter designation 3800 'Care and Protection Residential Centre - Upper North' in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) MINISTER FOR CHILDREN (ENV-2019-AKL-000007) Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory

7. [2022] NZEmpC 77 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 422 KB]

   HOSEA COURAGE, DANIEL PILGRIM AND LEVI COURAGE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR INSPECTORATE [2022] NZEmpC 77 [10 May 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 77 EMPC 363/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a declaration under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 BETWEEN HOSEA COURAGE, DANIEL PILGRIM AND LEVI COURAGE Plainti

8. [2022] NZEnvC 075 Otago Regional Council v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 27 MB]

   ...REGIONAL COUNCIL V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 75 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENV-2021-CHC-070) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J J M Hassan – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christ...

9. Rātima v Sullivan - The Tataraakina C Trust (2015) 41 Takitimu MB 102 (41 TKT 102) [pdf, 531 KB]

   ...of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise). [47] It is well established that the supervisory powers of this Court in relation to trusts are extensive. In Proprietors of Mangakino Township v Māori Land Court the Court of Appeal commented: 30 [21] In carrying out a general review of this kind the Court ought to concentrate on the broader picture and not become drawn into matters of detail, but it is in our view impossible to see any bright line between matt...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 223 FGH v RST [pdf, 688 KB]

    ...that the Court’s task is to examine objectively the employer’s decision-making process and determine whether what the employer did, and how it was done, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.6 Subsequently, the Court of Appeal in A Ltd v H discussed s 103A and observed:7 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed, t...