Search Results

1. 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...

2. Hinaki - Whangara A5 (2023) 116 Tairāwhti MB 143 (116 TRW 143) [pdf, 421 KB]

   ...demonstrate that the partition is essential rather than simply desirable or 6 Neal - Taiharuru 4C3C (2016) 132 Taitokerau MB 97 (132 TTK 97) at [30]. 7 MacDonald v MacDonald - Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Maori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) at [62]. 8 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 288(4)(a). 116 Tairāwhiti MB 150 expedient.9 In this respect I agree with Mr Revington, that this application relates to a small area of land surrounded by farmland and t...

3. Ferris v Brown - Nuhiti Q Inc (2023) 117 Tairawhiti MB 216 (117 TRW 216) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...proceedings. 10 Hettig v ANZ Bank of New Zealand Ltd – Lot 1 Deposited Plan 158328 (2014) 93 Taitokerau MB 238 (93 TTK 238), also referenced in Nicholas v The Official Assignee – Lot 6 PD 34349 [2021] Māori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228). 11 Hettig v ANZ Bank of New Zealand Ltd – Lot 1 Deposited Plan 158328 (2014) 93 Taitokerau MB 238 (93 TTK 238), at [45]. 117 Tairawhiti MB 223 [25] That means that an interim injunction under s 19(1)(b) prohibiting th...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...remove a matter, the party may apply for the special leave of the Court to have the matter removed.19 [20] Removal under s 178 is contemplated in relatively limited circumstances. Some confusion has been caused by a statement from the Court of Appeal reflecting this expectation but then referring to the “particular caution expected in cases that have not been fully investigated by the Authority”.20 Removal under s 178 will only occur in cases that have not been fully investi...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 122 Reunited Employees Assoc Inc v Nelmac Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...does not succeed.23 [28] The discretion is a broad one. Regard must be had to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties must be carefully weighed up. That balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd in the following way:24 [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 or...

6. 20231124-AG-BIM_Redacted_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...introduced in 2022.1 –––––––––––––––– 1 This obligation arises under section 7A of the Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General must also notify the House where the Human Rights Review Tribunal, or a senior court on appeal from the Tribunal, declares an enactment to be inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination (section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act) under the Human Rights Act 1993. 8 To date this process has been used once, fol...

7. Reti v Smith - Part Lot 7 Deposited Plan 3351 - Petane Marae (2024) 109 Tākitimu MB 1 (109 TKT 1) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...could have sought court directions to authorise the payments. They could have commenced a process to amend the trust order and charter to allow the payments, 7 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17), at [11]. 109 Tākitimu MB 7 although I accept this option may not have been feasible given the urgency at play. Rather than exercise one of the available options, the trustees simply authorised payments to themselves t...

8. 2023-10-12-Affidavit-of-Laila-Alkamil_Part1.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   ...of case management tools available to the Court to best enable meaningful participation by submitters. 29. With the strength of the differing opinions held within the community, it is likely, in my opinion, that the Application would otherwise be appealed to the Environment Court if it was heard by Council in the first instance. Having the Application instead heard by the Environment Court will avoid duplication of cost and time for the Applicant, Council and submitters. ECS-479124-46·2...

9. Smith - Nuhaka 2A4A9Y2 (2023) 122 Tairāwhiti 192 (122 TRW MB 192) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...shows that the applicant has 135.81652 shares in support out of 989.00000, amounting to 13.73% (rounded to the second decimal) of total shares. 2 MacDonald v MacDonald – Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) at [64]-[66]. 122 Tairāwhiti MB 202 [35] There are also 5 owners out of 25 owners supporting the application amounting to 20% of owners. [36] There are also five out of 25 owners opposed to the application, holding...

10. LCRO 36/2022 EY obo SG v LW (25 July 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

    ...continues to hold the amount recommended by the Committee to be refunded to Mr SG. Nature and scope of review [24] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:14 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...