Search Results

1. N Trust v NE [2023] NZDT 210 (24 May 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...disputes that the applicants have proved entitlement to the sum that they claim. [2] One of the trustees, HC, is a barrister. I have met him in the past, but do not know him well enough to consider that I should recuse myself in this matter. I permitted his attendance as an applicant, despite NE’s objections, because HC was, as a trustee, himself an applicant and was not a representative for any party. [3] The lease was dated 8 June 2021. C Ltd had owned the building at that date,...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 102 C v P [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Minister of COVID-19 Response [2021] NZHC 2337 at [40]; and Four Midwives v Minister for COVID-19 Response [2021] NZHC 3064 at [81]–[83]. 8 Kidd v Equity Realty Ltd [2010] NZCA 452 at [12]. way. In my view, the breadth of this power permits the Court to consider anonymisation of names, as identified by the Supreme Court in D v New Zealand Police,9 if there is good reason to proceed in this way. [19] Secondly, and alternatively, the ability to proceed in an equitable way i...

3. Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 181 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...argument had been fully canvassed and determined in previous District Court decisions and that no question of principle or law was engaged in the special leave application. The High Court also considered whether there was any special reason to permit the special leave application or whether there was any reasonable prospect of success in the appeal. Moore J determine that the answer to both questions was no. [12] She submits that the present application is no different from the prev...

4. Waaka - Te Manawa o Tuhoe A block (2014) 103 Waiariki MB 2 (103 WAR 2) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadverte...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 167 The Friends of Sherwood Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...impending aerial drop which could commence sometime in the week of 4 September 2018. [5] At the time the application was filed , no drop had occurred but the intent was that the Council/DOC was to undertake a pre-feed bait to occur as soon as weather permitted after 4 September 2018, followed within seven to 10 days by the 1080 drop. Urgency [6] At the commencement of the telephone conference call, the Court was advised that the Council had commenced the pre-feed drop at 11.27 am...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Holdaway [2022] NZLCDT 49 (22 December 2022) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...been tardy and capricious on at least several significant occasions. We cannot see any credible basis for predicting that her conduct will improve in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the public interests are firmly engaged. In short, if she is permitted to continue practising at the present time, we foresee similar problems arising for other clients. 5 Rule 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 6 Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Holdaw...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 70 Telecom New Zealand Limited v Long published version [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...potential defences relate to the restraint cause of action but not to the misuse of confidential information cause of action. The other possible defence that is identified (that Mr Long was unjustifiably dismissed by Telecom because he was not permitted to work out his notice) will, if it relates to anything, affect the restraint but not the prohibition on misuse of confidential information. Strong prima facie case? [20] I accept that the plaintiff has established a strong prim...

8. ACP v ZXP Ltd and ZXO Ltd [2013] NZDT 129 (13 June 2013) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...to establish the claim. This is called the “late knowledge” date. [17] Section 14(1)(a) to (e) defines this further, and includes cases such as the present case where damage is required as part of the claim (s 14(1)(c)). A claimant is permitted to bring a claim within three years of the discovery of the damage; this is called the “late knowledge period”. [18] Therefore, I find that this claim (in tort) is not barred by the provisions of the Limitation...

9. Te Au v The Descendants of Aperahama Hutoitoi - Taukihepa (Tītī Islands) (2017) 46 Te Waipounamu MB 236 (46 TWP 236) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...2015. [7] He relies on the same grounds to support his applications for relief pursuant to the Property Law Act 2007. Background [8] The events underlying this application go back some fifteen years. [9] In 2002 the applicant was granted a permit by the Rakiura Tītī Committee to erect a dwelling on Heretatua, a manu on Taukihepa. 2 106 SI 216. 46 Te Waipounamu MB 239 [10] In 2004 Elizabeth Sarah Wright sought an inj...

10. JF v RT LCRO 148 / 2011 (16 February 2012) [pdf, 69 KB]

    ...that consideration be given to whether a costs order should be made against her. [35] Section 210 of the Act empowers the LCRO to make such order for payment of costs and expenses as the LCRO thinks fit. This is a wide discretionary power and permits a costs order to be made against any party to a review hearing. [36] This office has incurred considerable unnecessary expense in scheduling a review hearing that the Applicant did not attend. While the Lawyers and Conveyancers...