Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 45 Bachu v Davie Motors Ltd [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...applicant's disposable capital. That should not, however, deter me from ordering the plaintiff to pay a proper amount to the defendants. The system may enable him to avoid his own legal fees at the expense of the taxpayer. He should not be permitted the same luxury in respect of party and party costs properly payable by him at the total expense of the defendants. I regard the ownership, albeit jointly with his wife, of a property of this value as an exceptional circumstance j...

2. National Standards Committee 1 v Kuddus [2023] NZLCDT 46 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...Hamilton; • his two Facebook posts (one of which explicitly referenced a notorious case where a lawyer accompanied her partner to Wanaka in breach of the lockdown); • his subsequent lying to another practitioner to suggest he had been permitted by a judge to travel2. [7] We find Mr Kuddus chose to breach the restriction. We are not impressed with his lack of candour by continuing to suggest he did not appreciate he was breaking the law. In the hearing, he acknowledged tha...

3. Manuel v Waitakere City Council [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...Fifth Respondent: (a) The Fifth Respondent, Terry McKeown was the roofing contractor responsible for the supply and construction of the roof for the claimants’ dwelling. (b) The Fifth Respondent carried out roofing work or caused or permitted work to be done on the claimants’ dwelling for which a permit or Building Consent was required by law and was obliged to ensure the work was completed in compliance with the Consent and all obligations under the Building Act 19...

4. BORA - National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...cl 13 is justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. The principal Act has the important objective of protecting New Zealand from biosecurity risks and improving food safety. The requirement that PICAs declare non- NAIT animals under their charge permits monitoring of other livestock which may be involved in the transmission of disease, and is rationally connected to this objective. As such a declaration must already be made for NAIT animals, and for all livestock for tax purposes, we...

5. IA v QZ and MA LCRO 205 / 2010 (18 June 2012) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...employee of Mr M. [20] It appears that as a pre-emptive step Mr M had already written to the New Zealand Law Society in November 2009 in response to a threat that the matter would be referred to the New Zealand Law Society if the Applicant was permitted to prepare documents for Mr M’s firm in the proceeding against B or his family. Mr M had informed the New Zealand Law Society at that time that he did not believe he was acting improperly, and had also sought the advice of an...

6. B v Q LCRO 48 / 2009 (20 April 2009) [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...Neither has he been able to produce any kind of reconciliation of monies received from Client B. [18] Lawyer Q is a barrister and as such is not subject to the stringent rules applicable to solicitors when handling client money and is not obliged (or permitted) to operate a trust account: Waikato Bay of Plenty District Law Society v Baledrokadroka [2002] NZAR 197. However, those rules are indicative of the stringent duties imposed on lawyers when handling funds and the importance of...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 025 Shundi Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...subject to pt 2 RMA, according to the various matters set out in s104. Of particular significance are: (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;21 and (b) any relevant provisions of the PDP.22 The 'permitted baseline' should not be appli,ed to residential amenity impacts [23] We decline to apply the permitted baseline discretion in s104(2), RMA. Hence, we do not accept the opinions of the urban design and planning experts 19 20...

8. Waikato and Waipa River Iwi [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...contaminants that PC1 seeks to control are achieved at the whole-of-catchment scale. (ii) Policy 1(b) and 2(b)(i) require priority focus to reduce identified contaminants in specific sub- catchments. (iii) Rules 3.11.4.1 and 3.11.4.3 introduce new permitted activity winter stocking rate thresholds which have the effect of: a. providing for unmanaged intensification of drystock farming resulting in an increase in the diffuse discharge of contaminants. b. increasing the...

9. [2020] NZREADT 50 - Yang v The Real Estate Agents Authority (13 October 2020) [pdf, 355 KB]

   ...that was not before the Committee. The documents sought to be produced are communications between the appellant and people who assisted her in a professional capacity in the process of obtaining a Certificate of Acceptance in respect of certain unpermitted work. [12] The application is opposed by the first respondent and the second respondent abides the decision of the Tribunal. Legal Principles [13] In its decision in Wheeler v REA1 the Tribunal stated the legal princ...

10. Waitangi Tribunal COVID-19 Level 2 Protocol (7 September 2021) [pdf, 158 KB]

    ...AVL suites). c. Face masks should be worn in all public spaces, in accordance with paragraphs 11-13 above. Gloves may also be worn. d. Hand sanitiser will be readily available within the hearing venue. e. The Tribunal will not normally permit documents to be handed up to the panel. Documents that parties wish to produce should be scanned and shared by email at the appropriate time. 28. Any concerns about health and safety practices should be raised with the Tribunal Regist...