Search Results

1. [2021] NZACC 176 - Renton v ACC (5 November 2021) [pdf, 728 KB]

   ...Additional concerns were then raised regarding the possibility of medical error on the part of Professor Bishara. Judge Beattie noted that this had not been addressed so he quashed the decision and referred the matter for another review hearing. [110] The review decision of 2013 found that negligence by Professor Bishara had not been established and therefore the application was dismissed. [111] Mr Beck submits that as the legislation relating to treatment injuries changed with...

2. LCRO 91/2019 CL v BK and AM (31 August 2021) [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...vendor’s lawyer that day of his approval of the purchase agreement. [109] However, where they disagree is that Ms CL says she did not understand from Mr BK that the outdoor structures were not recorded on the flats plan, and what that meant. [110] The purposes of the Act include maintaining public confidence in the provision of legal services, and protecting the consumers of legal services. To that end, “unsatisfactory conduct” by a lawyer includes, in s 12(a) of the Act, ...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 205 WXN v Auckland International Airport Ltd [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...coverage focused on the definition of “excluded airport person”. She argued that if WXN fell within this definition, he would not be covered by pt 3.1 of sch 2, which relates to all airside workers, other than excluded airport persons. [110] She submitted there are several interpretations or ways of looking at the applicable definition. 29 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021, cl 14. 30 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 103A. [111] It wa...

4. National Standards Committee 1 v Gardner-Hopkins [2021] NZLCDT 21 (22 June 2021) [pdf, 360 KB]

   ...s 7(1)(a) are those against which we should assess the conduct under scrutiny. We do so for each incident in turn. Standard of Proof [109] The standard of proof is prescribed by s 241 as being on the balance of probabilities. 24 [110] The Tribunal recognises that where the allegations are serious, strong evidence is required to establish them.16 Issue 2 - Does the conduct reach the level of Misconduct under either head? [111] As a preliminary matter, we accept the sub...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 140 Protect Aotea v Auckland Council [pdf, 545 KB]

   Protect Aotea v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2021] NZEnvC 140 IN THE MATTER OF two appeals under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN PROTECT AOTEA (ENV-2020-AKL-155) AND PROTECT OUR GULF INCORPORATED (ENV-2020-AKL-157) Appellants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent AND PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED Applicant AND SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF AOTEA COMMUNITY AND ECOLOGY INCORPORATE

6. Taueki v Procter - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2021) 437 Aotea MB 86 (437 AOT 86) [pdf, 389 KB]

   437 Aotea MB 86 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District A20180004434 A20180004854 A20180006936 WĀHANGA Under Sections 43, 19(1)(a), (b), (c), 238, 239 and 240, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block I WAENGA I A Between PHILLIP TAUEKI AND CHARLES RUDD Ngā Kaitono Applicants ME And JONATHAN PROCTER, MATHEW

7. SILNA-List-09-09-2021.pdf [pdf, 896 KB]

   ...Belcher Mereana Cissie 0.0488 1055 Bell Norman Richard George 0.1330 1165 Bell Debbie Moira 0.0590 301 Bell Edward Gordon 0.0590 376 Bell Jason Leslie 0.0590 639 Bell Kathleen Elizabeth 0.1140 779 Bell Molly Hana 0.0580 1102 Bell Murray James 0.1140 1113 Bell Peggy Carolina 1.2500 1230 Bell Tina Maria 0.0580 1585 Beresford Michael Joseph 52.5000 1071 Berryman Patricia Dawn 9.8430 1192 Bill Michelle Noeleen Ann 0.1590 1084 Bill...

8. J v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2022] CEIT-2019-0068 [pdf, 530 KB]

   1 IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0068-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN P J & S J Applicant AND HOLLOWAY BUILDERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) First Respondent AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent AND QBE AUSTRALIA LIMITED Third Respondent AND HFC CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL (SOUTH) LIMITED Fourth Respondent (REMOVED) A

9. Youth Justice Indicators Summary Report April 2023 [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...12% 15% 21% Public disorder Road traffic Property damage Dangerous acts Unlawful entry, burglary Causing injury Theft 14 to 17 18 to 19 Other/Unknown gender makes up to 1% of young people/18-19 year olds who offend. 701 307 171 53 110 32 263 109 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 N u m b e r p e r 1 0 ,0 0 0 p o p u la ti o n Māori Pacific Peoples European/Other...

10. LCRO 188/2021 MC v JK and UV (19 August 2022) [pdf, 355 KB]

    ...sundry attendances, meetings, Court appearances, correspondence, advice and all incidentals. [109] The invoice gives no indication as to how the figure of $18,000 has been arrived at; whether by time alone, or time plus or minus other factors. [110] Mr MC said that he first saw the invoice when Ms UV wrote to him on 25 May 2020 seeking payment, together with overdue interest totalling $6,669.67. [111] Mr MC said that he immediately challenged the invoice, by returning Ms UV’s let...