Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 85 Agus Riyanto & 43 others v Dong Nam Company Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...efficient means of dealing with the preliminary issue of relevance. [15] Regulation 38 defines the term “relevance” as follows: 4 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand [2005] ERNZ 905 (EmpC); leave to appeal against that decision was refused in Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd CA 28/06, 23 June 2006. 5 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand (EmpC), above n 4 at [60]. (1) For the purposes of regulation 37 and regulations 40 to 52, a docume...

2. FT v NSC LCRO 261 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...reason is simply as provided in the preceding paragraph – namely that I did not consider there was any strength in his application. It is difficult to see what further reason need be provided. [18] UQ has subsequently referred me to a Court of Appeal decision (Taylor v The Queen [2010] NZCA 628) where the Court applied earlier authorities that the giving of earlier adverse rulings, even adverse findings of credibility, will only “in the rarest of circumstances” (Muir v Commiss...

3. Morpeth v Ramsey LCRO 110 / 2009 (12 November 2009) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...In a different context see Davis v Witten-Hannah (3/6/94, Cartwright J, HC Auckland CPI 1389/90) where a lawyer was found to have breached fiduciary duties to a woman whom he both acted for professionally and had a relationship with (reported on appeal Witten-Hannah v Davis [1995] 2 NZLR 141; (1996) ANZ ConvR 65). [22] I also observe that Mr Morpeth accepted that Immigration New Zealand were interested in speaking to him because he was Mr Ramsey’s former lawyer and he had dealt...

4. Holden —Nga Taonga Tuturu (2010) 245 Aotea MB 230 (245 AOT 230) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Maori Land Court has jurisdiction under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section. (4) To avoid doubt, section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and any other relevant provision in that Act, applies to any claim for ownership or any appeal lodged under this Act. Discussion [19] The evidence is uncontested that the five artefacts are tāonga tūturu and accordingly, a determination is made pursuant to s 12(1)(a) of the Protected Objects Act 1975. Pumice...

5. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust [2014] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...argument at the second hearing. [26.10] The need to recall some witnesses at the second hearing. [26.11] The duplication of time involved in the Court and counsel “coming up to speed” again for the second hearing. [26.12] The prospect of multiple appeals. [26.13] The need for a second round of discovery or other interlocutories and amended pleadings following the first trial. 9 [26.14] Rostering difficulties in ensuring that the same Judge is available for the second hear...

6. Herewini - Torere Pa 16 [2016] Chief Judges MB 34 (2016 CJ 34) [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...complained of. [21] In Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) I summarised certain principles relating to s 45 applications as follows: 1 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 47  When considering section 45 applications, the Chief Judge needs to review the evidence given at the original hearing and weigh it against...

7. BD v EG LCRO 374/2013 & 376/2013 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...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 where she considers appropriate. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion 2 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [41]. 7 as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investiga...

8. Geldenhuys v C Yap [2013] NZIACDT 42 (15 July 2013) [pdf, 141 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. [81] 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...

9. AQ v ZI LCRO 105 / 2010 (11 February 2011) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...addition, Duncan Webb in his publication entitled “Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer” (2nd Edition) at page 388 refers to the decision of Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners [2000] 2 NZLR156 and opines:- “While the Court of Appeal in Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners was cautious and did not say the departure from an estimate renders the bill of costs unreasonable, it is submitted that this may be the case. An estimate is a representation that costs will be...

10. Marine and Coastal Area - Provisions for protecting customary interests [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...applicant that resource consent has been granted (section 67(3)).  If the 40 working day requirement is not met, the CMT group is treated as having given permission for the same term as the resource consent (section 67(4)).  There is no right of appeal or objection under ss 357 and 357A of the RMA to a decision to give or decline permission (section 68(2)). Do councils have a role in monitoring and enforcing compliance if CMT permission is granted? As noted, councils will n...