Search Results

1. Big Hill Station Ltd v Hemana - Awarua o Hinemanu Trust (2015) 43 Takitimu MB 218 (43 TKT 218 ) [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...275 (22 TKT 275) 28 Smith v The Proprietors of Mangaroa and Other Blocks Ltd (2015) 113 Waiariki MB 1 (113 WAR 1) 43 Takitimu MB 226 the parties has broken down to such an extent that BHS has restricted the limited access previously permitted to landowners. [29] In addition, Mr Macfarlane says that the present case can be distinguished from Smith v The Proprietors of Mangaroa and Other Blocks Ltd as these proceedings were difficult and hard fought and are the kind of ca...

2. [2017] NZEmpC 164 NZPSA v IRD [pdf, 519 KB]

   ...Act, but a similar conclusion must be reached here. It is a right which is potentially capable of enforcement. [140] As was the case under the former Act, whether direct dealings with an employee who authorises another party to represent them are permitted, is a question of fact; it is one which must be assessed in all the circumstances. [141] To take an obvious example, an employee suffering a temporary disability might appoint a representative for the purposes of a variation. If...

3. Taylor v Orcon Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297469� http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297473� 15 (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88...

4. Nepia Ranapia - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...significant realisation of what is appropriate when using the marine environment. d. Recommendations include that fishing and dredging or bottoin trawling activities around waahi tapu are prohibited. e. Within waahi taonga activities should be permitted in a restored environment that can support low impact fishing. A restriction on industrial scale methods such as that which uses hydraulic and electric equipment for extraction would be appropriate. 2 Decision [2016] NZEnvC 240....

5. Sell v Harris [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...in failing to detect the significant faults in relation to the ground levels and in relation to the construction of the deck walls and handrails and to a lesser extent the cladding. The deck walls and handrails were also departures from the permitted plans. The Council appears to have missed both the defects and the departures for the plans or failed to pay any attention to them. The ground levels and decks were significant causes of water ingress and accordingly the Council’...

6. Firearms-Prohibition-Orders-Legislation-Amendment-Bill_FINAL_Redacted.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...statement was not provided at the time of Cabinet’s policy decisions that support this Bill due to time constraints [100-23-MIN-0010 refers]. A supplementary analysis report has now been prepared by New Zealand Police and is attached. 34 As permitted by Cabinet’s decisions and Treasury guidance on regulatory impact analysis for policy proposals during the 100-Day period, this supplementary analysis has not undergone formal quality assurance due to time constraints. Internal rev...

7. Julian v Inia - Succession to Moehuarahi Te Ruuri (2024) 309 Waiariki MB 197 (309 WAR 197) [pdf, 459 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...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 189 Haig v Carrington Farms & Ors [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...paid for his 10 per cent shareholdings. However, Mr Haig did not agree to this variation by executing a form of ‘Demand Promissory Note’ that Mr Kelly prepared and sent to him. Mr Kelly’s proposal was that the promissory note would have permitted Mr Haig: … to become immediately the equity owner of record of 10% of the shares of Edgewater Developers and Carrington Farms which, together with the 5% “sweat equity” interest you are receiving, will equal 15% of the equity...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 68 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...substance of the communication in evidence. At that point an abuse of the privilege exists. The claimant cannot have the benefit of reliance upon the substance of the advice and still seek to shield that advice from disclosure to the other side. To permit this would give rise to unfairness in the required sense, in that the party’s conduct would be offensive to the trial process. [21] Mr Roest’s statements perhaps rest upon the cusp of the distinction which Pankhurst J made be...

10. DIJ v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 372 KB]

    ...vulnerability, the balancing exercise is struck soundly in favour of disclosure of all of the plaintiff’s personal information contained within the Transcript. 12 Police also rejected the Privacy Commissioner’s alternative suggestion that Police permit the plaintiff to view the Transcript. 14 [75] Finally Ms Dew KC confirmed that there is no risk that the plaintiff would put the Transcript into the public arena and that the plaintiff is willing to give undertakings or abi...