Search Results

1. BORA Securities Legislation Bill [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...penalty order and be liable for a fine under the relevant Act for the same conduct.[12] In respect of the civil liability provisions enabling compensation to be ordered in some instances, we draw your attention to the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in the leading case on 26(2), Daniels v Thompson[13] that made it clear that this section must be read as referring: Only to criminal proceedings relating to an offence against the law, for which the person has been tried. What is pr...

2. BORA Employment Relations Amendment Bill [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...bargaining for a MECA, the right to freedom of association is arguably engaged because an employer is required to participate in collective bargaining alongside other employers based on their association with the industry or occupation. 26. The Court of Appeal has previously said that while the right to collective bargaining arises out of the right to freedom of association, it is generally not regarded as an element of freedom of association.3 However, the Canadian Supreme Court...

3. XX v BA LCRO 273/2013, 343/2013, 040/2014 (15 July 2015) [pdf, 60 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 [12] Mr XX attended a review hearing in [City] on 6 July 2...

4. VM v ND & HB LCRO 249/2012 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...consideration by the Standards Committee, and the award of $3,000, on the basis as set out by the Committee. Censure [40] Mr VM queries what a censure “entails”.11 At the review hearing, referred Mr VM and Mr YK to comments made by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Law Society v B as to the nature of a censure. In discussing the nature of a reprimand or censure, the Court said:12 Both words envisage a disciplinary tribunal, here a Standards Committee, making a formal or off...

5. AS v DV LCRO 14/2014 (5 August 2014) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...[24]. 3 Above n 2 at [28]. 4 Above n 2 at [30]. 5 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 at Rule 10.7. 3 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 [14] On 29 July 2014 Mr AS and Mr DV attended a revie...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 41 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...discretion to grant the application it is appropriate to take into account the merits of the challenge. [31] Balancing the interests of the plaintiff and defendant is the overriding consideration.13 In McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd the Court of Appeal said in reference to rule 5.45:14 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 order for substantial secur...

7. KB and SB v EQC [2020] CEIT-2020-0021 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...refer to both protections as being without prejudice. Although I am not bound by the requirements of the Evidence Act, the without prejudice rule is a very important one. In Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialized Bicycle Components Inc the Court of Appeal discussed the exceptions when evidence of without prejudice communications may be admissible.3 Of these exceptions, three require consideration: (a) when parties have mutually waived the protection of the without prejudice rule;...

8. Broughton - Horowhenua 11B36 Sec 2L4A Kaiwiu Marae (2020) 424 Aotea MB 20 (424 AOT 20) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...contract in which that person may be interested or concerned other than as a trustee of another trust. [19] Two important and leading authorities on the law concerning conflicts of interests in Māori land trusts are the decisions of the Court of Appeal Rameka v Hall and Naera v Fenwick.8 Then there is the equally relevant judgment of the Supreme Court Fenwick v Naera.9 In Naera v Fenwick citing the earlier authority of Re Thompson’s Settlement, the Court concluded that any invo...

9. Horsfall v The Māori Reservation Trustees - Repongaere 4G (Part) (2003) 157 Gisborne MB 43 (157 Gis 43 [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...Regulations 1994 were considered. Two sections of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1994 (sections 2 and 17) noted above, have been regularly analysed and their importance affirmed in a number of Maori Appellate Court decisions including Re Mangaporou Trust­ An Appeal by Mr David Churfon 15 WGAP 120 (13 May 2003). In that decision the Maori Appellate Court approved the process of the Maori Land Court referring matters concerning trust administration to the owners and beneficiaries of the trust f...

10. Te Hiwi v Tahamata Incorporation (2005) 148 Aotea MB 265 (148 AOT 265) [pdf, 606 KB]

    ...common law and constitutional orthodoxy as to sovereignty, the Treaty and issues of custom. That orthodoxy has been confirmed by the Privy Council in Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] NZLR 590 and more recently by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 and Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643. Against this backdrop it is important in my view to underscore that the Maori Land Court is a court of record creat...