Search Results

1. Pryor v Perenara - Matata 930 (2005) 105 Whakatāne MB 254 (105 WHK 254) [pdf, 4.5 MB]

   ...Eugene Rondon were removed as trustees. The new tl1lstees are- Anipeka Tuna Henry Pryor Audrey Rota MOIl'is Ralll'eli Rita MalT Mark Sykes Tui Hunt Magdalene Mason Tame Minarapa Kristine Savage David Semmens The respondents appealed and on 28 June 2004 at Waiariki Appeal Minute Book 233- 245 the Maori Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part. The COlllt found no £1UIt with the appointment of the 11 new trustees (the 2003 trustees) and affinned the orders appoint...

2. [2021] NZACC 35 - Kinney v ACC (15 February 2021) [pdf, 202 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 35 ACR 375/17 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN PAUL KINNEY Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 November 2020 Appearances: Mr P Sara for the appellant Mr H Evans for the respondent Judgment: 15 February 2021 __________...

3. Olsen v Vercoe - Matata Parish Lot 6A (2015) 116 Waiariki MB 63 (116 WAR 63) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...Mr Olsen provided a schedule of numerous attendances and meetings that he and/or Mr Gardiner attended. The hours approximate to 128.5 hours but do not include time expended in relation to the injunction proceedings filed last year, the related appeal proceedings to the Environment Court, or the current removal application proceedings. The trustees say that the total time committed to the project could easily exceed 200 hours each. [16] The trustees advised that no payments have be...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 141 H and C v RPW [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...respondent or to others with a legitimate interest in the outcome. The Supreme Court went on to say that: “[w]here there is significant delay coupled with significant prejudice, then it may well be appropriate to refuse leave even though the appeal appears to be strongly arguable.”10 8 An Employee v An Employer [2007] ERNZ 295 (EmpC) at [9]. 9 Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801. 10 At [38](d). [23]...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 75 Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union Wellington Inc [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...working periods. [41] The full Court made a similar point in Greenslade v Jetstar Airways Ltd,12 although it must be acknowledged that it was dealing with a previous iteration of the rest break and meal break provisions.13 [42] The Court of Appeal, also dealing with a previous iteration of the rest break and meal break provisions, proceeded on the basis that breaks would likely arise when 12 Greenslade v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 23, [2014] ERNZ 157 at [35]. 13 The fin...

6. Pickering - Waima D8 [2018] Chief Judge's MB 820 (2018 CJ 820) [pdf, 710 KB]

   ...Hok.[ianga] into B of I. [Bay of Islands] and Te Rima out of B of I. into Hok. Where he becomes sole owner in most cases. He will be charged fees thru [ineligible]. All 3 parties to be notified of the making or completion of these orders, a right of appeal in normal way is allowed, though not requested as this completion is in the interests of all. 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 825 Concise statement of mistake or omission alleged by Applicant 8. The intention of th...

7. Rihia v Te Runanganui o Ngati Hikairo - Lake Rotoaira Trust (2012) 287 Aotea MB 44 (287 AOT 44) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...aware of his decision referred 7 67 Tokaanu MB 168 (67 ATK 168) 8 Ibid, at p170 9 Ibid 10 283 Aotea MB 112 (283 AOT 112) 287 Aotea MB 49 to above being subject to successful appeal or rehearing. So the beneficial owners ought to have been aware that there had been no annual meetings or elections for many years by the simple fact that none had been held. Despite this, as mentioned, there do not appear to have be...

8. IK v VR LCRO 227/2014 (21 December 2015) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...decision and quash the finding of unsatisfactory conduct and then refer that complaint to the Tribunal to be considered together with the two complaints referred there. [41] Mr AW submits that this latter course would be consistent with the Court of Appeal’s approach in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, 8 in which (according to Mr AW) the Court indicated a view9 Role of the LCRO on review that cases involving multiple complaints of varying degrees of seriousness against the same pra...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 99 Robinson v Pacific Seals Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...a significant hazard the employer must take all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise it. 14 A significant hazard is defined as including “an actual or potential cause or source of serious harm”. 15 [26] As the Court of Appeal observed in Central Cranes Ltd v Department of Labour: 16 The Act adopts a preventative approach to maintaining and promoting health and safety in the workplace. Its principal object is to provide for the prevention of harm. To a...

10. Smith - Parish of Te Papa Allotment 865 Block as contained in SA54B/993 (2008) 91 Tauranga MB 285 (91 T 285) [pdf, 715 KB]

    ...faith and for value before the l11aking of the amendment or cimcellation. [20] Counsel made reference to the principles by which contractual documents are construed as set out in Boat Park Ltd v Hutchinson [1999] 2 NZLR 74, where the Court of Appeal quoted from the judgment of Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd and Others v West Bromwich Building Society and Others [1998] 1 All ER 98, at 114-115. Lord Hoffman said:- "The principles may be summarised as follows:...