Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 94 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 262 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC v AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 94 [17 June 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 94 EMPC 152/2015 IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim injunction BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS & RELATED TRADES UNION INC First Plaintiff AND ROBERTA KEREWAI RATU AND OTHERS Second Plaintiffs AND AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant

2. [2015] NZEmpC 58 Hoff v The Wood Lifecare (2007) Limited Industries [pdf, 177 KB]

   DEBORAH HOFF v THE WOOD LIFECARE (2007) LIMITED NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 58 [6 May 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 58 CRC 19/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DEBORAH HOFF Plaintiff AND THE WOOD LIFECARE (2007) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 29, 30 September, 1, 2 and 3 October 2014 and 20, 21, 22 and 23 January 2015) (Heard at N

3. Evesham v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 136 / 2009 (5 November 2009) [pdf, 190 KB]

   LCRO 136 /09 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society AND D EVESHAM of Auckland Applicant The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] The New Zealand Law Society received a complaint from R Hastings against “Law Firm X”. That comp

4. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 99 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2007-100-000041 BETWEEN RICHARD TABRAM and HAYLEY TABRAM Claimants AND ARRAN SLATER and MICHELLE SLATER First Respondent AND OJO LIMITED Second Respondent AND BRUCE TINDALE (Removed) Third Respondent AND MINERAL PLASTER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing: 23, 24, 25 February 2009; 5, 11 March 2009 Appearances: T.J. Rainey and A. Parlane for the claimants E.J. Taia for the first respondents A. M

5. Mok v Boyd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 29 [pdf, 264 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-100-000106 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 29 BETWEEN CHONG HUNG MOK and SHUI HA HO Claimants AND BLAKE BOYD First Respondent (Nicola Boyd removed) AND CRAIG TIBBITS Second Respondent AND ALAN BOLDERSON Third Respondent AND MICHAEL GREGORY MAY Fourth Respondent Hearing: 31 August 2010, 1 and 3 September 2010 Appearances: J Tam and R Potter for the claimants Blake Boyd, First Respondent in person

6. Hall v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 228 KB]

   1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000011 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 6 BETWEEN FRASER HALL AND DUNCAN BINNIE Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND ULSTER PROPERTIES LIMITED Second Respondent AND MARK ALLAN BLACK Third Respondent AND BRUCE BEAZLEY Fourth Respondent AND KEVIN WILLIAM ANDERSEN (Bankrupt and Removed) Fifth Respondent Hearing: 5, 6 and 7 October 2011 (Closing submissions on 12 October 2011) Appe

7. Finn and Anor as Trustees of the Angela Poynter Trust v Chen [2011] NZWHT Auckland 40 [pdf, 261 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000078 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 40 BETWEEN JOHN JOSEPH FINN AND ANGELA MARGARET POYNTER AND SHANNON MARIE JONES as Trustees of the ANGELA POYNTER TRUST Claimants AND YUE MIN WANG (Deceased) First Respondent AND XU DONG CHEN Second Respondent AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Third Respondent AND COLIN HENRY THOMPSON & SALLYANN THOMPSON (Claim Withdrawn) Fourth Respondents AND PURE REALTY LIMITE

8. Wentzel v Collie [2012] NZWHT Auckland 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...included clause (d). In that case the purchasers discovered after purchasing a house that a CCC had not been issued for it. A Council inspection found that significant repairs including a reclad were required before a CCC could be issued. [101] Mackenzie J held that the responsibility to be satisfied as to the quality of the property purchased including any buildings lies entirely on the buyer and held that clause 6.2.5 was not a warranty as to quality and should not be c...

9. Hamilton v Trustees of Erepeti Marae - Tuahu 3X (2009) 128 Wairoa MB 77 (128 WR 77) [pdf, 931 KB]

   ...Paki v Maori Land Court [1999]3 NZLR 700 & Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Maori Land Court & Anor (CA 65/99, 16 June 1999, Wellington) 23 Ellis v Faulkner - Pori pori Farm A Block (1996) 57 Tauranga ME 7 (57 T 7) 128 Wairoa MB 101 application for the removal of trustees and thus the trustees perfonuance is only relevant to the extent that it impacts on issues raised by the applicant in his pursuit of anmqwry. Discussion by the Court [72] It is clear to this Cour...

10. BORA Foreshore and Seabed Bill [pdf, 125 KB]

    Foreshore and Seabed Bill Attorney-General 6 May 2004 1. I set out below my views on the consistency of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill (the Bill") with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("BORA"). In summary, I consider that the Bill is consistent with BORA. 2. My approach in this opinion is: 2.1 to consider whether there is any prima facie breach of a provision of the Bill. I conclude there is no prima facie breach of sections 20, 21 or 27(3) but accept there