Search Results

1. Retemeyer v Loloa - Estate of Tahuaka Waipouri (2016) 129 Taitokerau MB 288 (129 TTK 288) [pdf, 363 KB]

   ...tikanga Māori as it relates to whangai, the Court can only make an order under section 115 if it accords with tikanga Māori or, at least, does not offend tikanga Māori. I refer to the helpful discussion by the Māori Appellate Court in Re An Appeal by Waimania Hohua 10 APRO 43. [38] In Johnson v Stone, 12 Judge Coxhead adopted the approach in Karauti: [26] If the Court finds that a person is a whāngai, then the Court must give effect to the provision of the will absolutely, w...

2. [2008] NZEmpC WC 13B/08 Mana Coach Services Ltd v NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Union Inc [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...as I have concluded, is the Court at liberty to refuse to award wages to the employees for this reason? [58] Mr McBride argued that authoritative and binding decisions must preclude such an outcome. These include the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Bell (Inspector of Awards & Agreements) v Broadley Downs Ltd [1987] NZILR 959 and CMI Screws and Fasteners Ltd v NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 433. Both judgments were under different predecessor legislati...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 148 Lewis v JPMprgan Chase Bank NA [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...application for a verification order in respect of the plaintiff’s disclosure of documents. The Employment Relations Authority’s determination [26] This proceeding is a challenge to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority, statutory appeals under s 179 of the Act. Those two Authority determinations are known as Lewis v J P Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the substantive determination) 1 and Lewis v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the costs determination). 2 [27] The pl...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 255 Abrahamson v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...referred to as an FEP. [48] The proposed LWRP was notified shortly after the Environment Court 10 The joint memo regarding chronology dated 8 September 2023 states Original Water Use Permit CRC061972 was granted by CRC on 28 May 2010, although appeals to that decision were not resolved until 2012. 11 Pizey at [41]. 16 issued a consent order finalising conditions of the water use permit in 2012. CPW submitted on the proposed LWRP and a later variation (Variation 1). The nu...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 95 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...claims for restitution at common law is solidly based upon principles of unjust enrichment, rather than upon a notion of implied contract”. 22 [69] In Morning Star (St Luke’s Garden Apartments) Ltd v Canam Construction Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered the underlying basis of a quantum meruit claim and observed that whilst historically such had been treated as being based upon an implied contract, today it is generally seen as being a restitutionary claim. 23 That said,...

6. LCRO 240/2013 TM v DC (8 May 2017) [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...personal grievance application. It stated that the parties were in an existing employment relationship and directed them to “make arrangements necessary for [that relationship] to continue in light of this determination”.8 [17] Mr TM did not appeal the determination. 3 Email TM to [[company] including his manager] (26 February 2010). Mr TM says that he provided Ms DC with this evidence for the ERA hearing held in [date]. 4 At...

7. LCRO 148/2020 PV v GY (31 May 2021) [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...charge. A not guilty plea was entered and the matter was remanded for a case review hearing on [date] 2019. [15] On [date] 2019, Mr RS was sentenced to home detention following conviction on his driving charges. Ms PV was instructed to file an appeal. An appeal was lodged on 5 August 2019. [16] In proceeding its investigation of the assault charge, the Police made application to the District Court for an order requiring production of Ms CB’s medical records pertaining to her...

8. [2023] NZREADT 11 - CAC 2103 v Lieven (15 May 2023) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...to harass the tenants and was a direct threat. [23] The TT ordered the landlords, being Ms Lieven and HH, to pay the tenants $1,520.44. This consisted of $500 compensation, $1,000 in exemplary damages, and a filing fee. [24] Ms Lieven and HH appealed the TT decision to the [court] which dismissed the appeal and found that:1 (a) the Tenancy Adjudicator was correct to find that Ms Lieven breached her obligations under s 38(1) of the RTA by not giving notice of specific times of a...

9. [2022] NZACC 100–Phillips v ACC (25 May 2022) [pdf, 343 KB]

   ACR 211/21 IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2022] NZACC 100 ACR 211/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN YVETTE PHILLIPS Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2022 Heard at: Christchurch/ Ōtautahi Appearances: Appellant in person Ms F Becroft for the Respondent Judgment: 25...

10. LCRO 33/2016 GW v AX (27 June 2018) [pdf, 292 KB]

    ...scope of review [22] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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...