Search Results

1. [2021] NZACC 31 - Reynolds v ACC (5 February 2021) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...again. [46] He submits that the Panel’s concession, that the accident events, as listed, had at least a minor causal contribution to the chronic changes in Mrs Reynolds’ lumbar spine, is significant. He says that this is because ACC is only permitted to decline cover for a personal injury caused wholly or substantially by a traumatic process such as aging or disease. He submits that it is settled law that there does not need to be any particular contribution to a physical in...

2. Puna v Puna - Rotopounamu 1B1A [2022] Chief Judges MB 28 (2022 CJ 28) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...unsuccessful. Mr Puna believes that a further avenue of enquiry which could lead to locating the family arrangement document might involve a search of ‘The Puna Family Meeting Minute Books’ but has expressed doubt as to whether he would be permitted access to those records or further, be allowed to copy any documentation held in the family minute books. 24. This report also notes that Linda Merata Puna, Raymond Kaukohea Puna and Nikoela Aroha Puna succeeded equally to furth...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 214 King v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 13 MB]

   ...the principles set out in the decision of the House of Lords in Newbury,22 namely: (a) that conditions imposed must be for a planning purpose and not for any ulterior one; and (b) that they must fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted; and (c) that they must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed them.23 These considerations have been held to be of general application in New Zealand law.24 22 23 24 Environment [200...

4. MacDonald v MacDonald - Wairau Block XII Section 6C2C [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 259 (2016 APPEAL 259) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...land in all tangible ways. He has offered to buy Brigham’s interest in the land for around double of what Brigham is willing to pay him, but Brigham refuses to sell. Phillip submits that Brigham’s position is effectively that he should be permitted to retain indefinite sole occupation of the land to the exclusion of Phillip. [12] Phillip argues that the lower Court exercised its discretion wrongly in dismissing his application for partition. He refers to the Māori Appellat...

5. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...limitation defence could be raised in proceedings before the Tribunal but whether the Tribunal had sufficient features in common with an inferior court to allow it to be treated as such a court for the purposes of the Judicature Act 1908, s 88B which permitted the restriction of vexatious actions. The Full Court was careful to emphasise its decision should not be construed as a determination that the Tribunal was an inferior court and the decision was expressly confined to the specific c...

6. Haydyn du Fresne v CAC 406, Watkins & Fitzsimons [2019] NZREADT 6 (11 Feb 2019) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...per cent deposit was in fact all that was going to be required, that is not a matter which involves Licensee 1 who was in no position to influence the question of whether a lesser sized deposit would be acceptable. Assertion that Licensee 1 permitted vendors to inspect the property in his absence [99] The appellant alleges that the purchasers made a pre-settlement inspection of the subject property without Licensee 1 being present. On 4 July 2017, Licensee 1 sent a text to...

7. LCRO 138/2021 & 139/2021 TZ v FK and FK v TZ (26 July 2022) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...and would not be out of place in any proceedings in which a witness is being challenged. They were not 18 Interestingly, in an interlocutory ruling in connection with the judicial review proceedings, the High Court noted that "[the LVT] permitted cross-examination of Mr FK, and the expert witnesses called by [the COMPANY A] in reasonably forthright terms. The [LVT] itself, or more particularly the presiding judge also joined in the questioning…". See COMPANY C Ltd &...

8. Have your say on the family justice system [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...reasons the Ministry got the information was to give it to someone else https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/privacy_policy/ 3 • you have allowed it • it is authorised or required by law or, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons permitted under the Privacy Act 1993 such as to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of offences; for law enforcement; or to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to somebody’s li...

9. [2018] NZSSAA 018 (20 April 2018) [pdf, 502 KB]

   ...received the benefit payment in good faith; and [17.2] changed their position in the belief they were entitled to the payment; and [17.3] it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [18] Section 86(9B) makes it clear that the error must be an error on the part of “an officer of the department”; and not simply the act of making a payment to which the recipient is not entitled. [19] Counsel submitted...

10. LCRO 191/2019 UY v FB (26 November 2020) [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...been made; and (m) his third complaint concerned an allegation of perjury; and (n) the importance of his complaint cannot be understated; and (o) his view of relevant sections of the Family Courts Act 1980, was that s 11B(4)(a)(i) of that Act permitted circulation of Family Court documents, thus enabling him to release material to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) that had been before the Family Court. [22] By way of outcome, Mr UY made request for the LCRO to: (a) ex...