Ministry of Justice

Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 005 Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust Board v O'Brien, Pichler, Auckland Shooting Club Inc [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...and has measured the earthworks at 297 Tuhirangi Road and on 18 January 2018 issued abatement notices in respect of those earthworks with which the Respondents will comply; e) The earthworks undertaken comply with the relevant plan rules for permitted activities; f) The First Respondents continue to comply with their undertakings to the Court in respect of 287 Tuhirangi Road; g) It is not lawful, necessary or appropriate for the Applicants to have access to the properties; and...

2. Nicholas v The Official Assignee - Lot 6 DP 34349 [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...its owners. This has resulted in serious harm and grief. The Maketū land should in fact be Māori freehold land. (b) It is unlawful and a breach of human rights and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 permits the forfeiture of land when no criminal conviction is entered. Mr Nicholas has not been convicted of the charges on which the forfeiture orders are based. (c) The Maketū land is culturally significant to the whānau who reside there...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 1 Singh v Eric James & Associates Ltd [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...he rearranged these, he was expected to keep them. Mr Singh was expected to be available at least several evenings a week and at weekends. There were training and reporting requirements to which he was expected to adhere and Mr Singh was not permitted to engage in additional or alternative work in the same field, or certainly that would have been in competition with EJAL and its contracted insurers. [24] But there were also elements of the relationship in which there was not tha...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 8 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...accepted by all parties, however, it can be inferred that the defendants’ concern is that the documents may reveal that Haldemann LLC was carrying on business in New Zealand without registering as an overseas company for more than the ten days permitted by s 334(1) of the Companies Act. That seems at odds with the extract from the statement in reply that, to the extent that Haldemann LLC’s business was conducted in New Zealand prior to its registration as an overseas company, t...

5. Portsoy v Riding LCRO 55 / 2010 (4 August 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...undertaking and the terms of Agreement that had been signed by all of the parties. [8] Notwithstanding that the actual quantum of payments exceeded the amounts shown in the Payments Schedule, the Committee saw the work as falling within the range permitted by the Settlement Agreement, that they had been made in accordance with the undertaking given by the Practitioner and that the Practitioner‟s client who had been charged with ensuring the work was done had authorised release of...

6. Deputy Registrar - Lot 1 DP 17494 Part Section 2345 New Plymouth (old Railway Station) (2017) 374 Aotea MB 81 (374 AOT 81) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...also supported the proposed approach to the future conduct of these proceedings. Discussion [14] The allegations before the Court are serious. It is asserted that, by act or omission and in breach of their duties, the trustees have caused or permitted almost $400,000.00 of trust funds to be lost, allegedly by misappropriation, by a former trustee who had been appointed Chief Executive Officer of the trust. Even then, the trustees cannot be certain of the actual amount involved....

7. [2007] NZEmpC AC 51A/07 Maritime Union of NZ and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...defendant’s workplaces at which employees work, or may be called on to work, are within the secure port area. In Auckland, however, the second defendant’s offices are adjacent to, but outside, the secure zone inside which only authorised persons are permitted to enter, so that some of the second defendant’s employees work on the wharves while others do not do so or may only do so rarely. Most unionised employees of TLNZ Auckland Ltd work on the wharves, that is inside what i...

8. Strike-Out Application Adams v REAA CAC 20009 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...& Ors: 4 “As established in Henderson v Henderson if a point ought properly to have been put before a Court which is the subject of litigation, a party may not subsequently at a later date re-open old wounds to raise a matter. To permit such a course would be contrary to the principle of finality in litigation.” 10 The same principle is applied in the Australian Courts, referred to as “Anshun estoppel”. A recent statement of the “Anshun principle” was set...

9. Alloa v Ullapool LCRO 159/09 (22 June 2010) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...continued, and with reference to the deck (paragraph 3 of the 21 October letter) he stated his client had seen the latest plans, which appeared to show a larger structure and noted it would be for the Council to determine whether the design was a permitted activity. In paragraph 4 the Practitioner stated, on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, that his clients were prepared to agree to the original deck design with certain provisos. He then states: “not only will this save you consid...

10. MK v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 293 (1 August 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...failure of being of acceptable quality was a substantial one. 15. NJ acknowledged they would not accept products with holes in them, as this would damage their reputation, but his issue was that the curtains were not returned within the 48-hour time permitted for his company to rectify the problem for free with their workshop, or with logistics partners, should it be a delivery damage issue. 16. I find the lack of acceptable quality of the curtains was a failure of a substantial chara...