Search Results

1. [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...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 54 Hamon v Coromandel Independent Living Trust [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...the concept of causation has caused difficulties in some branches of the law. However, we think it has some utility here … (b) In Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc 6 the Court of Appeal outlined the correct approach to constructive dismissals as follows: 7 In such a case as this we consider that the first relevant question is whether the resignation has been caused by a breach of duty on the part of the employer....

3. LCRO 139/2017 ML v OP QR [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...and scope of review [30] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:5 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...

4. 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...

5. Mullane v Attorney-General [2017] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 417 KB]

   ...correctness of the findings and conclusions reached therein. [12] In relation to the findings made by the Privacy Commissioner at first instance, the same point must be made. The hearing before the Tribunal proceeds as a de novo hearing, not as an appeal. The fundamental principle is that the Tribunal must decide the case on the evidence and submissions received during the course of the hearing. In this case as in all others under the Privacy Act, the Tribunal inevitably receives more...

6. 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...

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. Mercury NZ Ltd v Cairns - Pouakani River Bed (2022) 277 Waiariki MB 174 (277 WAR 174) [pdf, 417 KB]

   ...the Pouakani Blocks on the basis that it remained land held by the hapū of Pouakani under their customs and usages. Some 21 years later Pouakani find themselves back in the Māori Land Court after various proceedings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. [6] The Supreme Court issued decisions in 2012 and 2014, being Paki v Attorney- General (No.1),2 and Paki v Attorney-General (No.2).3 A summary of the issues before the Court in those proceedings is set out in...

9. [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...

10. 2024] NZEmpC 195 Smalley v Hamilton Hindin Greene Ltd [pdf, 297 KB]

    ...the senior courts involving Mr Smalley and the ongoing shareholders of HHG. He said Mr Smalley had an appetite for litigation “at any cost”. Mr Mackenzie said there had initially been proceedings in the High Court,4 and then in the Court of Appeal.5 At the time of Mr Mackenzie’s memorandum, Mr Smalley had sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.6 [15] Mr Mackenzie cited a passage from one of the High Court judgments which stated it was clear Mr Smalley harboured deep...