Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 99 Speed v Board of Trustees of Wellington Girls College [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...making retrospective orders that illustrated divergent results. For example, Mr Wass referred to D v The Police where an anonymisation order was made by the Supreme Court with retrospective effect.19 Mr McBride referred to W v R where the Court of Appeal doubted it could redact retrospectively a judgment that had previously been issued.20 Analysis [32] The starting point is the principle of open justice explained by the Supreme Court in Erceg, as being of constitutional impor...

2. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 26 [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...for “without substantial merit” is objective.14 In Dewes v IAG New Zealand, the CEIT determined the question to be “what ought the party and its advisors have known about the prospects of the argument in question being successful?”15 On appeal, the High Court accepted the CEIT’s approach to the issue.16 [32] In Trustees Executors Ltd v Wellington City Council, Simon France J found that the defendants had advanced a case without substantial merit.17 In considering whet...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...defendant’s costs if the plaintiff’s proceedings do not succeed. [31] Then, the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case and the respective interests of both parties. The balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd as follows:22 [15] 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 su...

4. [2025] NZREADT 22 - ZD & NK v Liu & Zareian (18 June 2025) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...the proportion between themselves as to what each should pay is: Ms Liu $ 5,076.44 Mr Zareian $ 2,500.00 Ms Zareian $ 2,500.00 [69] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 14 PUBLICATION [70] Having regard to the interests of the public, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without identifying the complainants, but naming the licensees and the agency.30...

5. [2025] NZREADT 44 - OP v REAA (29 October 2025) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...dismissing the complaint was plainly wrong. The application for review is dismissed and the Registrar’s decision is confirmed. [63] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [64] Having regard to the interests of the public in knowing of any professional wrongdoing of licensees and also the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, balancing that against the privacy of the individuals i...

6. Evaluation of Family Dispute Resolution service and mandatory self-representation [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...lawyers receive for assisting parents to fill in Family Court forms does not compensate them adequately for the service they provide. 1.4 Key Findings: Mandatory Self- representation Interviewed parents found the concept of self-representation appealing as they thought that excluding lawyers would simplify things and reduce costs. A few parents did find representing themselves straight forward but most found it difficult to represent themselves in the Family Court. They struggled to fi...

7. [2006] NZEmpC AC 47/06 Cliff & Groom v Air NZ Ltd [pdf, 208 KB]

   CLIFF AND ANOR V AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AK AC 47/06 23 August 2006 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND ARC 50/05 ARC 51/05 AC47/06 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ARC 50/05 BRIAN CLIFF ARC 51/05 ALLAN WILLIAM GROOM Plaintiffs AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 March 2006, 3, 4 and 5 April 2006 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Jim Roberts and Gennise Luen, C

8. 2021-05-24 NPSREG Implementation Guide [pdf, 455 KB]

   NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 Implementation Guide Published in November 2011 by the Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143, New Zealand ISBN: 978-0-478-37267-0 Publication number: ME 1079 © Crown copyright New Zealand 2011 This document is available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website: www.mfe.govt.nz Acknowledgements Thank you to Clare Barton (Horizons Regional Council), Murray Brass (Cl

9. LCRO 154/2023 FH and NH v WA, BF and DT Limited (28 February 2024) [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...scope of review [88] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

10. Waitangi Tribunal - Wai 2200 A186 Scoping report [pdf, 3.3 MB]

    Wai 2200 Ngātiawa / Te Āti Awa Research Needs Scoping Report Tony Walzl WALGHAN PARTNERS 18 January 2016 Wai 2200 Porirua ki Manawatū District Inquiry Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 2200, #A186 camerja Official camerja Received camerja Text Box 18 Jan 2016 2 Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................