Search Results

1. BORA Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...Protection Officer, or as "an officer who has functions, duties, or powers under this Act" (clause 7, new section 69G – Interpretation) 2 In applying section 5, the Ministry of Justice has regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754; and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R...

2. ND v SE LCRO 197/12 (24 June 2015) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [13] Mr ND attended a review hearing in [City] on 22 June...

3. HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...question of compensation does not arise on the present facts because of the terms of settlement the parties 3 reached. Counsel refers to three of the functions that penalty orders fulfil in the disciplinary context drawn from the Court of Appeal decision in Wislang:1 (a) To punish the practitioner. (b) As a deterrent to other practitioners. (c) To reflect the public’s and the profession’s condemnation or opprobrium of the practitioner’s conduct. [12] Counsel also subm...

4. AX v ZM LCRO 244/2012 (23 April 2014) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Discussion [31] At the review hearing Ms AX traversed a wide range of...

5. Kartikeya v Fernyhough [2014] NZIACDT 79 (09 September 2014) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [48] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

6. Matchitt - Frank Hata Estate [2016] Chief Judge's MB 860 (2016 CJ 860) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...278-279 did not refer to substitution of issue and therefore Frank’s interests in Te Kaha8 were vested in his brothers and sisters, including Hubert. 6 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167-216 (2010 APPEAL 167) 7 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 8 Te Kaha 110 (Formerly Te Kaha 20B) and Te Kaha B6W & B6W1B 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 866 [12] Hubert deceased on 11 September 1977 leaving a Will and issue. The W...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 26 Tulloch v Hays Specialist Recruitment Australia Pty Ltd [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...was presented in the course of the provision of mediation services; or … [25] Turning to case law which has considered the section, Chief Judge Colgan summarised the principles to be distilled from the Employment Court and Court of Appeal decisions of Jesudhass, 5 and the later decision of Te Ao v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, 6 in the case of Rose v Order of St John, as follows 7 The principles distilled from these cases are as follows. All communi...

8. AR v PI LCRO 157/2013 (10 October 2014) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...them. This is an issue which would need to be determined by a court. [28] Mr AR had not assumed any personal obligations to SN Limited. He had not given any undertaking to remit the funds to UB Lawyers. In this regard, the Court of 6 Appeal judgment in Cashmere Enterprises Limited v Mathias7 referred to by the Standards Committee is relevant. [29] In Cashmere, Mrs Going irrevocably instructed Mr Mathias to pay a GST refund (which she had directed IRD to pay him) to the v...

9. Taka - Koparakore A32 A2 B3B (2016) 55 Takitimu 134 (55 TKT 134) [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...meeting. At the hui those present raised concerns about the site for the occupation order and access to the land. 7 Rudolph v Reti – Otetau B3A2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143) 8 Ibid 9 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 (HC) http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-appellate-court-sittings/2011/Otetao%20B3A2.pdf/ 55 Tākitimu MB 138 [...

10. Delamere-Amoamo - Estate of Tairongo Te Wiremu Amoamo (2016) 139 Waiariki MB 176 (139 WAR 176) [pdf, 212 KB]

    ...remaining (“the residue”) equally among those of my nieces Hera, Marlene and Jacqueline Manaehu Rose Swinton (“Jacqueline”) who survive me. 9 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 500 (2011 APPEAL 500) 139 Waiariki MB 181 [17] These provisions confirm a clear intention by the deceased to make provision for his Māori land interests. Accordingly, it is important to examine the remaining provisions of the will in su...