Search Results

1. Recorded Music NZ Limited v Telecom NZ 6806 [2014] NZCOP 4 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...As noted in a number of the Tribunal’s decisions,14 the factors identified by the Applicant may well be common to most the matters before it. As such the conduct does not meet the ordinary definition of “flagrancy” identified by the Court of Appeal in Skids Programme Management Limited & Ors. v McNeill & Ors 15 namely conduct that implies the existence of scandalous conduct or deceit; something beyond the common case. [43] Moreover, given BitTorrent Protocol software c...

2. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 2688 [2013] NZCOP 13 [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...holder, not the general public. [51] The rights holder observed the similarity between this provision and s 121(2) dealing with flagrancy and similar considerations in assessing additional damages in other copyright cases. It referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Skids21 but the Tribunal does not find that of much assistance. In that case the court was able to consider factors such as the intention of the parties, their means, their conduct – none of which are available to...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Inglis in Liu: [10] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties are to be carefully weighed. The balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd 8 as follows: 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...

4. Chief Executive, Ministry for Culture and Heritage - Tāonga Tūturu found at Plimmerton (2012) 283 Aotea MB 166 (283 AOT 166) [pdf, 202 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. [25] In addition to the decision cited earlier concerning a waka Tiwai, this Court has also considered claims to täonga tuturu from the west coast of the lower North Island in Hirini v Thomas.3...

5. CAC10063 v Raj [2013] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...Porlares, and $65,000 to Mr Dalangin, all to be paid to those persons 11 respectively by the defendant within two months of the date of this decision. [54] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member _____________________________...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 39 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...provides that the test for justification is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the Court is entitled to enquire into the merits of the redundancy business decision. 9 The genuineness of the redundancy remains a key focus. Once that is established, if an employer concludes that th...

7. [2015] NZEnvC 066 Waiheke Marinas Limited [pdf, 572 KB]

   ...AO 18/93 2 See for instance Haslam v Selwyn DC (1993) 2 NZRMA 628; Mills v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2005] NZRMA 227; Coull v Christchurch City Council (Environment Court) Decision C077/06; Shell NZ Limited v Porirua City Council (Court of Appeal) CA 57/05 3 (2014) ELRNZ 29 at paragraph [42] Matiatia Direct Referral (Decision re out of scope) 5 reduction in the scale, intensity or character of a proposal will often be found to be within scope. [12] There IS nothing abou...

8. Warrington - Hopa Te Piki (2011) 2011 Chief Judge's MB 325 (2011 CJ 325) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...and 1905 are not relevant to the present proceedings. 2011 Chief Judge‟s MB 331 [22] In summary, perhaps the most apposite summary of the apparent circularity of succession legislation applying to Māori can be found in the Court of Appeal judgement Whittaker v The Māori Land Court (1997) 15 FRNZ 51 where it noted: “Successively there were periods when the parent/child relationship between Meriana and Ngawini was recognised by law (1892-1901), was recognised by...

9. CAC10006 v Robertson & Hamilton & Kenny [2013] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...any penalty upon Mr Kenny as he could not have been penalised under the 1976 Act as a salesperson and accordingly we impose no penalty on Mr Kenny. 9 [25] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 24th day of January 2013 ______________________________ Ms K Davenport Chairman ______________________________ Ms J Rob...

10. Waimana 1C1A2B2 Trust v Tuna – Waimana No 1C No1A No2B No2 (2013) 76 Waiariki MB 19 (76 WAR 19) [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...experience and knowledge of the individual before appointing them a trustee of a trust constituted under Part 12. The Court must also be satisfied that the appointment of that individual is broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [35] The Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana8 recently considered the appointment of trustees pursuant to s 222, stating: [51] The touchstone is section 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experienc...