Search Results

1. Rabson v Solicitor-General (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...105 of the Human Rights Act. Section 105 requires the Tribunal "to act according to the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities". That section applies, with necessary modifications, to decisions of this Court on appeal against a decision of the Tribunal: s123(5). [46] The Tribunal has an express power to dismiss proceedings, if satisfied that they are frivolous, vexatious or not brought in good faith: s115. As Mr Laurenson points out, the Tribunal delib...

2. McLeod - Mangatawa 2B 2A Block (Tamapahore Marae) (2020) 201 Waikato Maniapoto MB 145 (201 WMN 145) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...(10 AP 233) at 236. 5 Kauika-Stevens v Tawake - Rangitatau 1D5A1 Reserve (Tākirau Marae) (2019) 396 Aotea MB 215 (396 AOT 215) at [23]; and Smith v Smith- Nuki o Te Hapū Tahawai ki Ratoroa Whānau Trust [2019] Maori Appellate Court MB 110 (2019 APPEAL 110) AT [34] fn 25. 201 Waikato Maniapoto MB 148 The difficulty I have with a strict application, is that it does not allow for someone who has been removed to rehabilitate themselves and, in the future, stand again for rea...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 231 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v JDFOODS Ltd [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...considered it carefully. The respondents have denied that there are arrears of minimum entitlements, and that there could be a personal liability on the part of either of the directors. [33] I note that on 20 December 2021, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment with regard to the threshold as to the degree of knowledge required for a pt 9A application against directors of a company.8 That court held that the level of knowledge required to establish liability for a person...

4. [2021] NZREADT 30 - Kan (17 June 2021) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...working days of the date of the Committee’s submissions. The Tribunal will then determine penalty on the papers. [36] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ________________ Mr N O’Connor Member ________________...

5. Aramatua Trust v Proctor - Nuhaka 2C2X (2020) 99 Tairawhiti MB 106 (99 TRW 106) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...records of this block are not readily available, however, I am bound to give effect to the orders of the Māori Land Court. In other words, the only orders that bind me, are the previous orders of this Court or the Māori Appellate Court, subject to appeals to the superior courts. Ngā take mō te whakataunga – Reasons for Decision [19] The application was filed on behalf of the trustees. They are the legal owners of the blocks subject to the trust. The respondent is one o...

6. Motu v Rapihana - Pukepoto 8B15B3B Residue (2022) 256 Taitokerau MB 150 (256 TTK 150) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvey Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129. 3 Henry Roach (Petroleum) Pty Ltd v Credit House (Vic) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 309 at 311. 256 Taitokerau MB 195 be brushed over lightly.4 In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction:5 The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for which the p...

7. LCRO 77/2021 GS and VU v CN and SW (23 March 2022) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...March 2022 attended by Mr CN and Ms SW, Mr GS and Mr VU, and Mr PG and Mr BB, counsel for Mr GS and Mr VU. [23] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:6 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...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 169 Hairland Holdings Ltd v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employmment [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...[56] and [66]. proceedings. Hairland sought a finding that the Authority did not have jurisdiction to investigate the Inspector’s claims. [11] By agreement the challenge was deferred and eventually stayed pending the outcome of appeals in Gill Pizza. The application to strike-out [12] The Chief Executive applied to strike-out Hairland’s challenge on two grounds. The first ground was that Gill Pizza confirmed the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine the s...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 207 Arohanui Hospice Service Trust v New Zealand Nurses Organisation [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...Ltd, above n 7, at [31]; Aviation and Marine Engineers Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 172 at [71]–[72]; New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air NZ Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 168, [2014] ERNZ 709 at [14] and [17] (undisturbed in later appeals). days are not fixed, the reference is back to the day of the week on which the public holidays fall: Where a part-time employee’s days are not fixed, the employee shall be entitled to public holiday provisions if they...

10. BORA-Vet-advice_-SIGNED-with-coda-Firearms-Prohibition-Order-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-Consistency-to-NZBORA-15-February-2024-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 5 MB]

    ...searches cannot be justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Human Rights Act 1993, s 21{f) . Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at (55] and [143] . • 7 39. However, applying the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Ngaronoa v Attorney-Genera/, we do not consider the Bill engages section 19. 24 Specifically, because: 39.1 While the Bill expands the category of people against to whom FPOs may be made gang members or associates, in particular...