Search Results

1. [2019] NZEnvC 129 Thornley v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...(a) $2,247.492 (expert planner); and (b) $674.103 (legal costs). [5] The Council makes the following submissions in support of its application (by way of summary): 2 3 4 (a) the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 provides that where an appeal is withdrawn after being set down for hearing the court will normally award costs against the appellant in favour of the other parties for their preparation for hearing;4 [2019) NZEnvC 83. Amount sought is 100% of cost incurred....

2. Wooten v Dorr [2012] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...role and the disclosed invoices from Mr Dorr to the Wootens clearly illustrate that margin, at a rate of six per cent, which was an addition on all such invoices. [17] The law is clear. In Bowen v Paramount (Hamilton) Limited1 the Court of Appeal held that “contractors, architects and engineers are all subject to a duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage to persons who may or should reasonably expect to be effected by their work.” Chambers J stated in Body Corporat...

3. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v Mr V [2023] NZLCDT 6 (21 March 2023) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...standards or such serious negligence as, although not deliberate, to portray indifference and an abuse of the privileges which accompany registration as a medical practitioner.” [85] Kirby J's dicta was adopted by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v C where it was held that intentionality is not a necessary ingredient of misconduct. The Court stated: 9 Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O’Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 15....

4. [2020] NZEmpC 34 Byrne v The New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...that different event. 11 Employment Relations Act 2000, sch 2 cl 15. 12 Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [2015] NZEmpC 186 at [27]. This proposition was not considered on the dismissed appeal: The Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [2016] NZCA 126. 13 Stormont v Peddlethorpe Aitken Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 159 at [23]; Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 137, [2015] ERNZ 1080 at [18]−[21]; and Rodkiss v Carter...

5. Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill: Approval for Introduction [pdf, 462 KB]

   ...8y9t1vo72j 2018-07-19 11:51:38 7 earthquakes. The Tribunal will not consider issues involving on-sold properties. The Tribunal may join other potentially liable parties to the dispute where necessary. 49 Decisions of the Tribunal can be appealed on questions of fact and law to the High Court, with leave of the High Court. Second and subsequent appeals can be made on questions of law, with leave of the appellate Court. 50 Policyholders, insurers and the Earthquake Commission...

6. Wharekura v Skerrett-White - Kawerau A8D (2021) 263 Waiariki MB 71 (263 WAR 71) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...unreasonable for trust beneficiaries to have included in the trust deed reference to robust and transparent accountability mechanisms. For example, while it 7 Moke v Trustees of Ngāti Tarāwhai Iwi Trust [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 265 (2019 APPEAL 265). See also Nikora v Tūhoe-Te Uru Taumatua [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 APPEAL 248) 263 Waiariki MB 76 is not mandatory, it is often a useful check to have included in the trust deed provision for the...

7. AFT v Tower Insurance Ltd [2022] CEIT-2022-0001 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...which the consumers likely to put them: (c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used: (d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before the defect become apparent. [25] Tower points to the Court of Appeal case of Nesbit 6for guidance about how to interpret this standard. The Court of Appeal sets out 6 principles to consider: 5 E v IAG [2021] 2019-0013 at [194]. 6 Nesbit v Porter [2000] 2 NZLR 465 (CA) 6 (a) the consumer’s...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 117 Johnston v The Fletcher Construction Company Ltd [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...Greymouth Petroleum, above n 3, at [21]. [21] Beyond the formal court record, access to the Court’s file by a non-party is only likely to be permitted where what is being pursued is for a recognised and legitimate purpose.14 The Court of Appeal in Greymouth Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Empresa Nacional Del Petróleo commented that the purpose of obtaining documents to assist, or to potentially assist, other litigation is legitimate but only if there is a point to the exercise...

9. Trustees of the Horina Nepia & Te Hiwi Piahana Whanau Trust v Ngati Tukorehe Tribal Committee & Tahamata Incorporation (2014) 319 Aotea MB 238 (319 AOT 238) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...its successor (NTTC) is the legal owner of the 3,781.28 shares in Tahamatā Incorporation transferred by Paora Te Hiwi on 30 August 1978. 1 At the conclusion of that decision I invited counsel to file submissions as to costs. I note that the appeal and rehearing period has now long since expired. [2] Ngāti Tukorehe Tribal Trust (NTTC) and the Incorporation filed a joint memorandum as to costs dated 3 February 2014. NTTC do not seek legal costs against the whānau trust as they we...

10. MLC- MAC - 2016 sitting dates [pdf, 723 KB]

    ...application is made under part 4 or sections 214 or 217 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, with the Registrar of the Court in which the application is to be heard, or with the Chief Registrar in respect of applications to the Chief Judge, notices of appeal to the Māori Appellate Court and any other application required to be lodged with the Chief Registrar as set out in rule 4.1(2). W W ISAAC J M TANGAERE CHIEF JUDGE CHIEF REGISTRAR MĀORI LAND COURT / MĀOR...