Search Results

1. Watson v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2015] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information. (3) The application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Parts 4 and 5. [67] Refusal of access is permitted only in the circumstances identified in ss 27 to 29. See s 30: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297080� http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297092�...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 228 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...attributes of a barrister. It is his duty to not keep back from the court any information which ought to be before it, and he must in no way mislead the court by stating facts that are untrue, or mislead the judge as to the true facts, or knowingly permit a client to attempt to deceive the court. How far a barrister may go on behalf of his client is a question too difficult to be capable of abstract definition, but when concrete cases arise one can see for oneself whether what he ha...

3. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...purpose and intent, and must properly address the grievance which caused offence to be taken. [57] Mr RB’s apology is framed as follows:16 Pursuant to the order of the Standards Committee and without being able to understand why a lawyer is not permitted to ask a Police Officer to be truthful in Court and also not being able to understand how asking a Police Officer to be truthful is equivalent to the making a positive statement the Police Officer is lying when the two are different,...

4. Nightingale v CAC10055 & Lee, Godfrey & Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2012] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...Pastorial Ltd & Ors: "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 princip...

5. Smith v Smith - Nuki o Te Hapū Tahawai ki Rataroa Whānau Trust [2019] Māori Appellate Court MB 110 (2019 APPEAL 110) [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...acceptable to the beneficiaries. By excluding the mokopuna, he contends, the Court could not be satisfied as to the test of broad acceptability. Third, he says that the notice for the meeting was inadequate. Fourth, Mr Smith argues that proxy voting, permitted under at least one of the trust orders, was applied inconsistently, thereby tainting the election outcomes. [3] The respondents deny these claims. They say that there was no exclusion of beneficiaries, and that some of the...

6. Scarborough v Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2015] NZHRRT 43 [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...as their intention is to harm the plaintiff. [7.1.2] In other proceedings for sexual harassment against a different employer she has made identical allegations that the legal representatives engaged by the employer are not qualified or otherwise permitted to appear. Her claims have been firmly rejected. See Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 39 (30 March 2015) and the related costs decision in Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 105 (3 July 2...

7. [2019] NZREADT 45 Beatson - Ruling on Costs (26 November 2019) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...The appellant will have 10 working days within which to file any memorandum on the matter of costs arising from the material which the second respondents have provided, with such submission again not exceeding four pages. The Authority will be permitted to file submissions on costs (subject to the same page restrictions) within a further 10 working days. [2019] NZREADT 45 - Beatson - Ruling on Costs - sealed Finally, the second respondents will have a further period of five worki...

8. [2008] NZEmpC Maritime Union of NZ Inc and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...of Appeal judgments and applicable to conventional inter-parties litigation may not apply, at least with the same force, in cases such as this. [26] The broad discretion given by clause 19 to Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 permits the Court, under the unique regime of employment relations, and this Court’s appreciation of them and their implications, to do justice in costs by taking account of factors such as those I have just outlined. [27] So I accept that...

9. [2008] NZEmpC CC 5C/08 Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the Court seems to have come to expressing a view is an obiter remark in paragraph [2] of the decision in Witcombe where Chief Judge Colgan described the proceedings as being an application for special leave under s178(3) “… as the statute permits in addition to an appeal …”. [13] As a matter of principle, it is unsatisfactory for there to be two alternative processes available in the Court to address the same issue. Such a situation is even more unsatisfactory where those...

10. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC rebuttal Stephen Brown [pdf, 164 KB]

    ...public car park and adjoining village / mixed use precinct within the Matiatia (Gateway) Land Unit. Of note, that land unit sets out to accommodate future development up to either 8m or 13m in height (nearly three storeys to five storeys) and Permitted Activities that include hostels, community 31555466:629148 5 facilities, cafes, restaurants and residential development. I agree with Mr Scott that such development potential needs to be acknowledged in looking at the Appli...