Search Results

1. Humphries v CAC 10070 & Anor [2013] NZREADT 103 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...amounts to a breach of the Act, regulations, or rules. [50] Mr Hodge submitted that once a Committee has concluded that a licensee’s conduct amounts to unsatisfactory conduct, it must make a finding accordingly. He puts it that s.80(2) does not permit a Committee which has conducted an inquiry and a hearing on the papers, and concluded that a licensee’s conduct falls within one or more of the four tests set out in s.72 and therefore is unsatisfactory conduct, to decide that, notwi...

2. Proposed model for establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission - Redacted [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...alignment with the New Zealand appeals process. 8 Further work is required to recommend a test for referral to the courts 52. Legislation to establish the CCRC will need to specify the ground or grounds on which referral to the court is permitted. We have not yet reached a view on the appropriate test, though we have identified a number of options including: 52.1. where there is a ‘real possibility’ that a conviction or sentence will be set aside (per UK CCRC) 52.2. if...

3. Mitchell v Trustees of Pukeroa Oruwhata Trust - Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust (2003) 277 Rotorua MB 285 (277 ROT 285) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...review by the Trustees, the beneficial owners and at the latters' request, by the Court. Concerns have been raised about the perception that conflicts of interest might arise without proper safeguards. It is also arguable that the practice of permitting what are in effect, potentially life long appointments may not be consistent with recognised best practice in a corporate governance context. Forceful submissions were made by beneficial owners and their representatives that many able...

4. Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and Royal Forest Bird Protection Society Inc. Submissions - 27 November 2017 [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...purpose of setting FA sustainability measures, quota allocation and quota management areas. To that extent, and subject to the Court's findings regarding indigenous biodiversity, the exercise of s30(1)(d) functions to control that effect is not permitted. But RMA controls are permissible insofar as the effects go beyond biological sustainability of the aquatic environment as a resource for fishing needs, for example to effects on intrinsic values or character of a place. 30 b...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 159 Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security v Cradock [pdf, 350 KB]

   ...at, or after the end of the trial period.” [26] The final words of the subsection have two potential consequences. First, although a notice of termination for the purposes of s 67B(1) must be given before the end of the trial period, it is permitted to take effect either before, at, or after the end of the trial period. [27] Second, the effect of giving such a notice prior to the end of the trial period means it will relate to a future event if the termination is to take effec...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 109 Health New Zealand v KiwiRail Holdings Limited [pdf, 897 KB]

   ...Requiring Authority within the land requirement area; and e) ensures Watercare maintains access to its assets within the land requirement area 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for maintenance, safety and operation, provided that: i. Watercare holds a permit to enter the land requirement area; and ii. Watercare staff and / or contractors provide advance notice to Train Control before entering the land requirement area. Review of Designation 33. As soon as practicable following comp...

7. National Standards Committee 2 v Tingey [2023] NZLCDT 22 (17 May 2023) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...balance between the public interest and private rights. These are significant matters. It is one thing to accept that any person who exercises a profession may need, for the purposes of the proper regulation of that profession in the public interest, to permit some scrutiny of his private affairs; to suggest that any or all aspects of that person's private life must be subject to regulatory scrutiny is something of an entirely different order. It is apparent from this quote that it...

8. Haupini v SRCC Holdings Ltd (Application by Defendant for Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...the Director’s decisions and the Minister, in turn, must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives. [49] In short, it can be argued that while the Director is not exempt from adverse awards of costs, such awards must not be permitted to weaken the Director’s statutory role. He should not, by the prospect of monetary penalty, be discouraged from bringing proceedings within the purposes identified in s 92(2) of the Act. [50] Returning to the facts of the presen...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 025 Minister of Conservation v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 5.5 MB]

   ...Indigenous Biodiversity 8 – 7 The difference in approach recognises that rules in themselves will not improve the overall condition of significant natural areas; only by working with landowners can that occur. However, control through both permitted activity rules (with conditions) and discretionary activity rules for vegetation clearance is also necessary to assist in minimising the loss of ecosystems, habitats and areas with indigenous biodiversity value. Indigenous vegetation cle...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 132 Waterford Holdings Ltd v Morunga [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...on behalf of 8 I acknowledge the issues regarding this approach, as explored in Harris v The Warehouse Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 188. There, Chief Judge Colgan did not finally determine whether s 124 permitted complete remedy extinguishment, stating the issue should be considered by a full Court. As I did not, and could not, receive full argument on this issue in the present case, I consider it appropriate to follow the line of authority w...