Search Results

1. LCRO 193/2017 AA v BB and CC (29 November 2019) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...to how the events had relevance to the conduct complaints he was advancing. [135] To the extent that Mr AA was able to usefully reference particular events relevant to the conduct issues, the concern he expressed was that Mr BB and Ms CC had permitted and encouraged a witness to produce evidence to the Court in circumstances where it was manifestly apparent to them that the evidence was false and misleading. Mr AA concluded his submissions at hearing, with argument that he believe...

2. [2020] NZSSAA 4 (28 April 2020) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...ordinary residence in Singapore he must have met the requirements the Supreme Court identified; it could not happen by default. Key elements in the Supreme Court’s reasoning we must apply to XXXX’s circumstances were: (a) The Act does not permit residence in two countries simultaneously.24 (b) The meaning of the words “ordinarily resident” mean “a place in which someone resides”, “home for the time being”.25 (c) The necessary degree of permanence or habituality...

3. UY v Bunbury LCRO 17 / 2012 (4 March 2013) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...considerable thought as to whether or not this matter (and others referred to in this decision) should be the subject of charges before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. However, I have determined in this case that the maximum fine permitted by the Law Practitioners Act 1982 should be imposed as Dr Bunbury’s failure to consider his obligations to [Company A] and Mr UY in these matters is serious. [76] In addition, Dr Bunbury is censured in relation to this con...

4. George v ACC [2012] NZACA 13 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...was an earner and by this means avoid the effect of the Giltrap decision, now upheld by the High Court in Vandy. It was quite wrong, he submitted, that a decision in 1981 assessed on its merits by the appellant’s solicitor at the time, could be permitted a review 29 years later. None of the usual mitigating factors applied, and this was a case of a decision 9 ultimately accepted at the time on its merits, now being challenged for an ancillary purpose. [46] Regarding prej...

5. Taueki - Horowhenua XIB41 North A3A and 3B1 (2007) 193 Aotea MB 232 (193 AOT 232) [pdf, 4.1 MB]

   ...application and the opportunity to make submissions. Their pm1icipation in the process makes this plain. No altel'llative offers [35] Ms Taueki in her written submission intended for the hearing on 12 June 2007 argued that the timefi'ame permitted by the COlll1 was insufficient and that further time was necessary. In any event she contended that the application should be dismissed until such time as various matters raised in her submission had been addressed by the incor...

6. Hoban v Attorney-General [2022] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...taken from Butler at [17.20.3] and [17.20.12]: [17.20.3] Further, where matters of social policy are in issue courts have also been willing to accept that the state is not required to tackle all aspects of a problem at once: incremental measures are permitted. Distinctions required by international instruments are also likely to be upheld, though they are not beyond scrutiny. [Footnote citations omitted] [17.20.12] … the range of factual inequality within society is so great that one...

7. Tapsell - Succession to Pera Wikiriwhi or Pera Matataia [2021] Chief Judge's MB 1002 (2021 CJ 1002) [pdf, 485 KB]

   ...not required to give effect to the arrangement which in large measure was compiled by the District Registrar. 27 200 Rotorua MB 264 (200 ROT 264). 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1022 Kupu whakataunga Decision/Orders [22] As the law permitted the Court to confirm such a family arrangement, the Court was entitled to do so pursuant to s 213A(2). [23] Thus, I do not consider that the applicant has proven the case on the balance of probabilities that there was an error made...

8. Ratahi v CAC301 & Legge [2015] NZREADT 62 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...can exercise its discretion over the quantum of fees to be refunded. The fees have been illegally and improperly obtained, and it is up to this Tribunal to in effect “draw a line in the sand” to the industry stating that such activities are not permitted and will not be condoned. 33. There cannot be a partial refund of something that has been wholly illegally obtained. 34. This is not a Court of equity, this is a Court of Disciplinary Tribunal enforcing the strict provisions of...

9. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC revised evidence chief Shumane final [pdf, 395 KB]

   ...berth holders, will be allowed to enter the restricted area at the cul-de-sac. I agree with Mr Mitchell that such vehicles will be able to enter the marina’s parking facility for drop-off and pick-up while non-berth holders will not even be permitted to enter the cul-de-sac for any drop-off or pick-up. 30. While I maintain the view that this level of drop-off and pick-up activities will occur within the marina’s parking facility I no longer have the view that this volume is in...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 99 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

    ...uses the examples of s 122(1) of the District Courts Act 1947, s 51(1) of the Judicature Act 1908, although accepts that the regulation making power under s 237 of the Employment Relations Act does not refer to the word “procedure” when it permits regulations “… prescribing any act or thing necessary to supplement or render more effectual the provisions of this Act as to the conduct of proceedings before the Authority or the court.” [21] The defendants rely on the...