Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Willi [2012] NZLCDT 16 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...received by her Ms Williams was charged in the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court and initially found guilty in respect of five charges of false accounting laid under s.260 of the Crimes Act 1961. [4] That conviction was overturned on appeal to the High Court. However the findings, in particular as to Ms Williams’s credibility, were not disturbed. [5] Following negotiations between counsel the original charges were amended so as to remove the wording “... so as to dece...

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Whitcombe [2019] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...decision in Lagolago9 emphasised the broad discretion of the Tribunal as to costs, reflecting as that does the special role of disciplinary proceedings, which are otherwise funded by the profession and are brought in the public interest. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld a refusal of costs on an otherwise “successful” appeal.10 [50] We accept the Standards Committee submission that “misconduct” was certainly arguable on the facts of this case, in respect of Charge 1....

3. McConnor v New Zealand Law Society [2024] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2024) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...Only once an applicant has arrived at that point will he or she typically be in a position to identify reliably the triggers of previous wrongdoing and the mechanisms necessary to avoid its recurrence. [12] Various Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal decisions concerning Mr McConnor’s wrongdoing and strike-off were produced and analysed via an affidavit by a New Zealand Law Society regulator. Mr McConnor submits that, as evidence, these items are not permitted by s 50 Evidenc...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 107 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...consequences for her employment. 4 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [2015] NZERA Wellington 108. [13] Mr White, counsel for the CCDHB, relied on dicta of the Court of Appeal in Just Hotel Ltd v Jesudhass. 5 He submitted that s 148 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) protects written or oral communications, but not actions or inactions. He also said there would be no impediment to a non-part...

5. CEIT Annual Report 2022 [pdf, 446 KB]

   ...applications: (a) six have been resolved but are classified as active until the completion of agreed repairs, or finalisation of settlement details; (b) two have been stayed by the parties or are awaiting the outcome of a case in the Court of Appeal; (c) three have been heard but are awaiting a substantive reserved decision, (d) one is resolved but is open pending a reserved costs decision (e) two have been scheduled for hearing; (f) four have been scheduled for settlement...

6. Wiringi - Succession to Ngahuiatapu Rogers [2024] Chief Judge's MB 144 (2024 CJ 144) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicants must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [13] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the R...

7. 2024-07-18-Updated-Notice-of-Hearing-MEP-Coastal.pdf [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...pMEP: Topic 10.16 Coastal Occupancy Charges ENV-2024-324-000002 The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited v Marlborough District Council Marine Farming Association Incorporated & Aquaculture New Zealand v Marlborough District Council Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to Clause 14 of the First Schedule...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 90 OSS Ltd v Arthur [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...this. Jurisdiction [47] The application is brought under reg 64 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000. The principles are well known. In exercising discretion, the Court takes into account such factors as whether the applicant’s right of appeal would be ineffectual if no stay were to be granted; whether the appeal is brought and is being prosecuted for good reasons; whether the successful party would be effected injuriously by a stay; the effect on third parties; th...

9. Ngāti Moerewa Māori Incorporation v Sanson - Part Maungakawakawa 20 (2024) 274 Taitokerau MB 292 (274 TTK 292) [pdf, 348 KB]

   ...or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. … [7] In Attorney-General v Prince, the Court of Appeal determined the approach to a strike out application:4 (a) Pleaded facts are assumed to be true (unless they are speculative or without foundation); (b) The cause of action must be so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succe...

10. McDonald - Pakiri G (2017) 155 Taitokerau MB 117 (155 TTk 117) [pdf, 163 KB]

    ...do not consider that the making of disclosure carries with it any implication that the very making of the disclosure indicates that the judge’s impartiality is compromised. In that respect I disagree with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Taylor v Lawrence. A matter should be disclosed in any case where it is possible that the observer might reasonably think the judge could be biased as a consequence of it. The judge or the court can then consider...