Search Results

1. Hurricanes Crusaders Chiefs v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 128 [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...[1963] NZLR 339, 353- 354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57. [25] Even if the qualifying criteria are made out, the Court has an extensive discretion in the grant or refusal of leave so as to ensure proper use of scarce judicial resources. Leave is not to be granted as a matter of course. One factor in the grant of leave is the wider importance of any contested point of law: eg. Jackson and Kenyon above. [5] An error of law will also arise where a decision is wrong...

2. NZBORA-Advice-Fair-Digital-News-Bargaining-Bill-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...justify any non-compliance. While the maximum financial penalties for strict liability offences in the Bill are significantly higher than those typically associated with strict liability offences, substantial penalties may be necessary to dissuade well-resourced parties from contravening their statutory obligations. A court retains the discretion to impose a lower penalty where to do so would be proportionate in the circumstances. Section 27(3) – Right to civil litigation 26. Sectio...

3. HC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 391 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...warranty that it caused works to be done without obtaining a building consent when one was required? 4. HC claimed X Ltd breached clause 9.2(5) of the agreement where the vendor warranted that for any works it had done, it had obtained ‘any permit, resource consent, or building consent required by law”. 5. NN, director of X Ltd, considered a building consent was not required because the existing bathrooms were only renovated prior to the sale and there was no movement of the wat...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 22 Menzies v Corrigan [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...[9] Other factors, including the likely merits of any related challenge, can also be relevant.11 Ultimately, the overarching consideration is the interests of justice. 8 Grove v Archibald [1998] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129. 9 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. 10 Assured Financial Peace Ltd v Pais [2010] NZEmpC 50 at [5]; and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bilgola Enterprises Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 48 (CA)....

5. [2024] NZEmpC 165 Berryman v Fonterra Coopertive Group Ltd - Interlocutory [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...Practice Directions <www.employmentcourt.govt.nz> at No 11(4). 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 180. 7 Duncan v Osborne Building Ltd (1992) 6 PRNZ 85 (CA) at 87. 8 Grove v Archibald [1998] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129; and Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. the interests of the parties and generally have regard to the following non-exhaustive list of factors:9 (a) whether the challenge will be rende...

6. Wai 3300, 6.2.018 Wānanga ā-rohe background paper [pdf, 598 KB]

   ...and self-government.13 The Central North Island (Wai 1200) Tribunal considered the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga extends to Māori the right to: (b) constitutional status as the first people (tangata whenua); (c) manage their own policy, resources, and affairs within the minimum parameters necessary for the operation of the State; (d) enjoy cooperation and dialogue with the Government; and 8 New Zealand Māori Council, A Discussion Paper on Future Māori Development and Legis...

7. Māori Trustee – Mourea Papakāinga 3D (1995) 240 Rotorua MB 212 (240 ROT 212) [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...beneficiaries legal or practical Interests and a particular vulnerability of the beneficiary. These factors can be gleaned from decisions of the Canadian jurisdiction namely Frame v Smith 119871 2 SCR 99,137 and Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14. Express endorsement of those principles within this Jurisdiction II contained within the judgement of the Court of Appeal; OHL International (NZ) Ltd v Richmond Ltd (1993) 3 NZLR 10. At page 23 fine 5 th...

8. 2025 NZPSPLA 038.pdf [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...and made changes to better his business practices. [b] He accepts the report and is prepared to address the deficiencies identified. [c] He acknowledges he has acted unlawfully. [d] He has engaged with external professionals to provide him with resources to improve those practices. [e] He has implemented a new regime of training and intends to conduct compulsory training for his employees every six months. [f] He spoke to new procedures he has put in place to ensure all workers...

9. [2025] NZEmpC 172 South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...questions involved; 4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 180. 5 Duncan v Osborne Building Ltd (1992) 6 PRNZ 85 (CA) at 87. 6 Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 64. 7 Grove v Archibald [1998] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129. 8 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. 9 Assured Financial Peace Ltd v Pais [2010] NZEmpC 50 at [5]; and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bilgola Enterprises Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 48 (CA...

10. [2024] NZSSAA 08 (6 June 2024) [pdf, 132 KB]

    ...of the cash deposit for 2021, but further information was not provided until 1 November 2022. For the Ministry, the additional information verified the source of the “cash deposit” and confirmed that the cash came from XXXX’s own personal resources and not from another source of income, and had been used to fund her business expenses. 14. Following receipt of the information, the Ministry removed the cash deposit from XXXX’s income. This decreased her income to $48,740 p...