Search Results

1. Julian v Inia - Succession to Moehuarahi Te Ruuri (2024) 322 Waiariki MB 32 (322 WAR 32) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...been described in the case of Coleman v Chalklen [2016] NZHC 3178 as follows: There are exceptions to the general exclusionary rule. The exception which is applicable in this case is known as the “armchair principle”. The armchair principle permits a court to ascertain all the facts known to the will-maker at the time he or she made the will. The Court of Appeal reiterated the limits on the discretion in Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479, (2000) 19 FRNZ 260 (CA) when Blanchar...

2. OIA-112091.pdf [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...Police to protect people at risk from violence, harassment, or intimidation. When a PSO is made the person bound by it must leave the address while the PSO is in force and abide by certain conditions. If the bound person does anything that is not permitted by the PSO, Police can take the person to court. A breach of a PSO is not a criminal offence. However, where a PSO has been breached, Police can request a temporary Protection Order be issued by the District Court. This occurs as lo...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 269 CSI Property Limited v Selwyn District Council [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...provide sufficient space to accommodate a limited extent of commercial activity and community activities, along with space to provide for their functional requirements, within a high-quality environment. Development within each centre is subject to a permitted maximum total of 450m2 gross floor area, beyond which an assessment of effects on the transport network and the role of the centre within the hierarchy of commercial centres is required. Development Caps and Sequencing Given...

4. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Leach [2024] NZLCDT 19 (3 July 2024) [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...23 November 2018 the practitioner, or an employee of the practitioner at her direction, paid the filing fee of $700 to the [town] District Court. 2. The practitioner did not have a trust account and, in her practice as a barrister, she was not permitted to receive or hold money or other valuable property for or on behalf of another person, under r.14.2(e). 3. The receipt and holding of the filing fee paid to her by Ms H in the sum of $700 between 5 April and 23 November 2018 (or th...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 181 Ford v Henry Brown and Co Ltd [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...have been unlikely to have been intended by the parties. How would a prospective employee know what “may” be regarded as relevant to the employer and accordingly what they had to disclose? What of information that an employer is not lawfully permitted to ask about or rely on when making hiring decisions, but which the employer might regard as relevant? Would family commitments, health issues, an historic criminal conviction be relevant? [26] I have cross-checked the plain and...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 230 Pilgrim & Ors v The Attorney General & Ors [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...registered, there should be an uplift to reflect the GST component in respect of costs. A downward adjustment? [31] Issues arose before and during trial as to the nature and scope of the evidence.22 While a considerable amount of evidence was permitted to be put before the Court, some of which was on a provisional basis, various rulings record that issues as to potential costs implications would be addressed at the costs stage. [32] The Gloriavale defendants argue that the maj...

7. Tranche 3 of Cabinet and Ministerial advice on changes to clubs and ranges regulations [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...F I D E N C E 2 I N C O N F I D E N C E 5.1 maintain the regulatory requirements for pistol clubs and ranges, recognising that there are higher regulatory standards associated with pistols (such as the requirement for an endorsement and a permit to possess a pistol) due to the ability to conceal them, and streamline the annual reporting requirements to reduce burdens on operators; 5.2 simplify the regulatory requirements for non-pistol1 clubs and ranges to recognise non-pistols...

8. LCRO 196/2022 LQ and BQ v HN (2 December 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...by deduction from trust money. [77] A full copy of that article is attached to this decision. I also refer to [15.1] of the Lawyers Trust Accounting Guidelines (June 2024) issued by the New Zealand Law Society. The paragraph reads: You are not permitted to deduct fees from a client’s trust money unless you have provided that client with an account for the services carried out (Regulation 9(1)) and the client has authorised the deduction (Section 110). [78] I do not consider that a...

9. Hawira v Pomana - Succession to Te Au Pomana [2024] Chief Judge's MB 2004 (2024 CJ 2004) [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...raised with them while they were alive. Arguably, the filing of the application demonstrates a marked lack of respect or aroha for them and their immediate whānau, raising as it does the potential for whakamā. [20] What is clear is that the law permitted the exercise of jurisdiction to make the order complained of. I cannot reverse that based on the wishes of the siblings who now, over 40 years later, want to claim a share of the Māori land interests of Te Au Ote Rangi Pomana. I...

10. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v McCardle [2025] NZLCDT 3 (10 January 2025) [pdf, 624 KB]

    ...in a timely manner. [31] Mr McCardle’s conduct in delegating the remaining executive functions of his duties to a beneficiary is not the prime focus of the charges although it provides the context in which the Deed was created. We agreed to permit Ms Fee to file a memorandum following the formal hearing. She has done so, advising that Mr McCardle had made an offer to Mr S to resolve the outstanding duties to the charity beneficiaries. That is material evidence that Mr McCardle...