Search Results

1. Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACA 7 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...care needs was relevant to my assessment. [47] I do not accept Mr Darke’s submission that the answer to the assessment I must make depends on the care his parents actually provided, rather than on what was objectively required. Section 80(3) permits the Corporation to pay where an injured person “must have” constant personal attention, paying such amounts as the Corporation thinks fit for the “necessary” care of the person. The objective nature of the criteria has been...

2. BORA Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment [pdf, 402 KB]

   ...of s 21.[3] Freedom of expression 6. The Bill necessarily limits freedom of expression both by requiring non-disclosure of certain information and, more broadly but indirectly, in deterring or “chilling” communication between individuals by permitting that communication to be monitored. 7. The question is whether that limitation is demonstrably justifiable in terms of 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. In that respect, the purpose of the restrictions, however, is to support New Zealand...

3. Piper v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 408) & Ors [2017] NZREADT 32 [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...such a condition being inserted. They said that the stump and its roots were essential to hold up the bank the stump was on, half of the stump was on the neighbour’s property (so their consent would be required), and that the Council would not permit it to be removed. [34] On 13 August (three days before the auction), Mr Ebert sent an email to the second respondents and Mr Piper, reporting on progress with marketing the property. He said, among other things: Stump, we should...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 107 Zespri International Ltd v Yu interlocutory [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...sensitive. [24] I consider, however, with respect, that the terms of the compliance order made by the Authority, rather than the fact of making a compliance order, contain the error into which it fell. [25] First, the terms of its order permitted the whole of the contents of the laptop to be ‘reviewed’ (that is, as I understand it, inspected) by the representatives of both parties. In these circumstances, Zespri is understandably and rightly concerned that its privile...

5. Cunliffe & Cunliffe v Helensville Primary School Board of Trustees [2024] NZHRRT 4 [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...then s 66(2)(b) will be satisfied and there will be an interference with Mr and Ms Cunliffe’s privacy. [26] In determining whether there was a “proper basis” in s 66(2)(b) reference must be made to s 30 PA 1993 which states: 30 Refusal not permitted for any other reason Subject to sections 7, 31, and 32, no reasons other than 1 or more of the reasons set out in sections 27 to 29 justifies a refusal to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6. [27] The wordi...

6. [2021] NZSSAA 12 (3 March 2021) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...employment offers the best opportunity for them to achieve this independence. [21] Training and gaining skills are also referred to in the principles. The Act should not impede people training and gaining skills, as far as the provisions in the Act permit that to happen. What XXXX did was to continue her part-time work, manage her responsibilities as a parent and take on some additional papers to complete her qualifications as quickly as possible. She reasonably objects to a legis...

7. [2021] NZACC 146 – Buis v ACC (28 September 2021) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...requires payment of interest only in respect of calculations made under that Act for any period commencing on or after 1 July 1992”. The reason for that qualification is this. An issue had arisen under the 1992 Act as to whether s 72 of that Act permitted or mandated the payment of interest prior to 1 July 1992, the date on which the 1992 Act came into force. The Corporation contended it did not, but this argument did not prevail in at least one District Court case. At the time th...

8. Insley v Insley - Awanui Haparapara No 2B No 1B Sec 2 [2023] Chief Judge's MB 323 (2023 CJ 323) [pdf, 416 KB]

   ...demonstrates that the Court considered all these factors and was satisfied it could exercise its discretion to grant the orders complained of. [53] In considering the factors set out in ss 328 and 329, the lower Court exercised its discretion as permitted by the legislation to grant the orders. In short, the Court acted within its jurisdiction in making the orders, as provided under ss 328 and 329 . [54] Included in the exercise of that jurisdiction are wide discretionary powers. So...

9. LCRO 142/2016 TR v YV (28 November 2018) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...of a court case where the applicant makes her case and provides evidence which is then subject to cross examination. The LCRO regulates his or her procedure in such manner as he or she thinks fit, with as little formality and technicality as is permitted.14 [28] As Mr YV required to be heard in person, the review proceeded as a respondent-only hearing in [City] on 4 October 2018. Ms TR was provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing but elected not to attend. Delegation [29]...

10. Hunstanton v Cambourne and Chester LCRO 167 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 71 KB]

    ...as a customary term of the retainer in the absence of specific agreement to the contrary. [49] A lawyer who intends to impose a premium which would be unexpected to a reasonable client will have to establish as a matter of contract that this is permitted as well as having to establish as a matter of professional conduct that the fee reached is fair and reasonable. It will be difficult to do so if the client was not on notice of a method of billing which is other than the usual time...