Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 173 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...counsel for the applicant J Goldstein and L Ryder, counsel for the respondent Judgment: 20 December 2016 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL An urgent question [1] Should an imminent strike at the Port of Lyttelton be permitted to proceed? [2] That is the issue raised by an urgent application for an interim injunction, brought by the Lyttelton Port Company Ltd (LPC) against the Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc (MUNZ or Union), whose 169 members propos...

2. [2020] NZEnvC 001 Environmental Defence Society v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...by the CEL with associated HNC and ONC overlays. While one may imagine each control operating in the absence of the other, in reality these two controls overlap conceptually as well as spatially. [58] For example, one dwelling per lot, which is permitted in the Rural zone under Rule 56.4.17, becomes a restricted discretionary activity in an outstanding natural landscape under Rule 32.3.8 and a discretionary activity in an ONC area under Rule 32A.3.18. It is not immediately apparent...

3. LCRO 131/2022 GN, YL and EK v FQ (30 June 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...administration of justice. [80] But it is approaching the trite to emphasise, that complaints of the nature described in [77] above are best addressed by the presiding Judge. [81] It presents as approaching the inconceivable that a Judge would permit counsel to seemingly persistently engage in conduct of the nature described above without intervening. [82] It fell to the presiding Judge to provide oversight of Mr FQ’s role. It was the Judge who was best positioned to provide in...

4. [2020] NZREADT 29 – Molloy v Real Estate Agents Authority (9 July 2020) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...to making his offer and had done his due diligence in respect of the LIM. [The appellants] submitted that it was perfectly natural that unnecessary terms were not included in the ASP. The six month settlement period was presumably designed to permit [Mr Pallatt] to sell another property to fund settlement of the property. 2 Committee’s substantive decision, at paragraphs 3.14 to 3.18. 3.16 We acknowledge that [the appellant...

5. LCRO 79/2019 PS v NR (28 May 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...protection order if she contacted Mr UM directly. Instead, she claims Mr NR later, at the 12 June 2018 hearing, “used” her 22 December 2017 email to Mr UM “against” her. [84] Ms PS argues Mr NR’s “allegiance to” Mr UM did “not permit” [Mr NR] to “encourage [her] to breach” the protection order. She claims her 22 December 2017 email had nothing to do with Mr NR having told her on 20 October 2017 he would not pass on her emails to Mr UM. [85] Mr NR submits...

6. Smith - Parish of Te Papa Allotment 865 Block as contained in SA54B/993 (2008) 91 Tauranga MB 285 (91 T 285) [pdf, 715 KB]

   ...as the land is Maori freehold land. The Court would not be able to grant confirmation because the agreement was not properly executed, it breached the terms of the Ahu Whenua Trust requiring that the land become Maori freehold land as soon as permitted by the terms of borrowing of any lender in respect of a loan secured over the land, and that consideration of $90,000.00 is inadequate as the value of the land is $175,000.00. Caveator's Submissions [13] The Harris's argu...

7. Supplementary advice on proposed Criminal Cases Review Commission model - Redacted [pdf, 319 KB]

   ...regulate its procedure in this regard would enable the development of robust decision-making procedures, without unnecessarily trying to predict and codify how the CCRC should best approach its decisions on referral. The CCRC should be explicitly permitted to take no further action on an application 69. In our previous advice, we noted that our initial view was that it may be preferable not to specify grounds to refuse an application in statute. 70. Investigative bodies in New Zealand...

8. AD & Anor v ZU LCRO 60/2013 (3 March 2014) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...has wrongly recorded, failed to recognise, or misunderstood. The ADs also say that the Committee’s approach to Mr ZU’s failures was inappropriate, with particular reference to: a. failing to obtain legal aid for the ADs; b. not securing or permitting a High Court Judge to preside over the negotiations that resulted in the ADs signing the Deed; c. inadequately preparing for the settlement meeting; d. not allowing the ADs time to reflect on the agreements they had reached i...

9. [2009] NZEmpC AC 30/09 Masonry Design Solutions Ltd v Bettany [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...and internet system. After Mr Bettany’s dismissal, the company discovered that some of his work had been of such poor quality that it had to be redone at a significant cost to the company. The plaintiff also concluded that he had exceeded the permitted reasonable private use of his company cell phone for which it had paid. [10] Mr Bettany issued proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority alleging that he had been dismissed unjustifiably and seeking monetary co...

10. LCRO 190/2020 JG v VK (23 March 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

    ...was loaded into the system by Police at 3.06 pm. [13] Regrettably by this stage, Ms JG’s younger son had already boarded a flight to [Country] with his brother and father at 2.14 pm. Immigration NZ subsequently advised that the child had been permitted to travel, “undocumented”. [14] Ms JG says that unbeknown to her, the children’s father had obtained “temporary travel documentation” from the [Country] High Commission. It was Ms JG’s 3 view that these documents...