7448 items matching your search terms
...determine a claim will not be affected by the failure of a respondent to serve a response under s.28, or the failure of a respondent to provide specific information requested, or the failure to attend the hearing. Under these circumstances, I am permitted to draw any inferences that I may think fit, and determine the claim on the basis of the information available to me.
...use change Through regulation of land use change under Policy 2 (c) and Rule 3.11.4.9, that the Decisions restrict land use flexibility in a manner that is inconsistent with Part 2 of the RMA; That the Decisions Version, in finding that permitted farming Give effect to the reasons for the appeal by: (a) Deleting Rule 3.11.4.9 so that the use of land for farming is governed by Rules 3.11.4.1 to 3.11.4.8; or (b) If the Rule is not deleted, by reinstating the expiry date...
...19-20: …The doctrine of estoppel is one founded on considerations of justice and good sense. If an issue has been distinctly raised and decided in an action, in which both parties are represented, it is unjust and unreasonable to permit the same issue to be litigated afresh between the same parties or persons claiming under them; . . . [21] Mr Moodie’s submissions acknowledged that the process of disclosure had resulted in a number of orders and decisions of the Emp...
...application to set aside an area of Tokata AIS as an urupa or cemetery. The Court reserved its decision on that date. A full written judgment was released on 9 September 2004 recorded at 68 RUA 131-141. In that judgment I granted the order under S.I3S/93 permitting the change of status on the basis that:- (a) Mr Evans needed to raise development finance; (b) Mr Evans would need to file a written undertaking that he will not sell Tokata A IS and that he would return to the Maori Land...
...irrelevant, given that the recall obtained here was based on an error of fact, which could not have been the subject of an appeal to the High Court. [30] It is not correct that appeals are restricted to questions of law, as section 111 of the 1982 Act permits the High Court to consider any question which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the High Court. Such a question could involve a dispute of fact. In any event, wh...
...omitted). [20] The Court guards its discretion over costs, but as a matter of practice it does not lightly allow a plaintiff to displace the presumption that costs follow discontinuance. We make three points. [21] First, the Court does permit a plaintiff to show that its discontinuance should not be interpreted as failure; the proceeding having ended unilaterally rather than by judgment, the Court is prepared, in a clear case, to recognise that the plaintiff may have ac...
...[86] the Tribunal held that the higher the impact on open justice, the greater the degree of persuasion required to satisfy the desirability threshold: [80] In our view not all of the many circumstances which might conceivably fit the exceptions permitted by HRA, s 107(3) will have the same significance to the general rule of open justice. Some circumstances will impact on open justice to a greater degree than others. As a consequence the degree of persuasion to satisfy the desirability...
...Lawyers Standards Committee or a Conveyancers Standards Committee on complaints that are made. 3. The purposes of the complaints and discipline system under the Act includes processing and resolving complaints as expeditiously as circumstances permit and in appropriate cases by negotiation, conciliation or mediation. The role of the LCRO and its procedures need to be viewed in light of these purposes. 4. The LCRO must discharge the functions of the office with as little formality and...
...the personal information (about him) collected by the Official Assignee was not collected for a lawful purpose (Principle 1), that collection of Mr Hide’s personal information from third parties rather than directly from Mr Hide himself was not permitted by Principle 2(2) and that the information was collected by unlawful or unfair means or intruded to an unreasonable degree upon the personal affairs of Mr Hide, including the medical affairs of his family (Principle 4). More part...
...previously. 3. Mitigating features [21] There was no direct harm to clients in the manner in which Mr Hong conducted himself. No dishonesty was involved. [22] We accept that Mr Hong felt strongly provoked by Mr Deliu, however that cannot be permitted to excuse Mr Hong’s behaviour, which was intemperate, as found. 8 Hong v Auckland Standards Committee No. 3 [2014] NZHC 287. 6 [23] The strongest factor which we can take...