Search Results

1. XN v Ji [2019] NZIACDT 67 (1 October 2019) Sanctions [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...it until it was too late to appeal to the IPT. She lost the opportunity to have her application considered on appeal and accordingly seeks compensation for the fees paid in relation to the appeal. [18] At the request of the Tribunal, Mr Chen filed evidence supporting the claimed expenses on 10 September 2019. An additional expense was also claimed. [19] The following table identifies the items of compensation claimed, together with the amounts for which the complainant has been...

2. GotB Submissions in support of application to strike out - final [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Court to allow the case to be taken further. 7. There are no fixed categories or circumstances that amount to “abuse of process”. 8. GotB relies on its previous memorandum and submissions (dated 16 March 2018 and 13 April 2018 respectively) filed in advance of WIAL’s last request for an adjournment of its proceedings in respect of the legal position in respect of strike out (attached to these submissions for convenience). In summary, the legal considerations are:1...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 187 Van Tiel v Waikato District Council [pdf, 781 KB]

   ...agreed position in relation to them. [C] Under s 285 of the Act, there is no order as to costs in respect of [A] or [B] above. \'.~:t)// -.,,,. ._.,..,., . ...-" 2 REASONS Introduction [1] These appeals relate to an application filed by Mainland Poultry Limited (MPL) for resource consent to undertake intensive farming, including laying and chicken rearing facilities, at 64 Old Road Orini. [2] The Council granted consent on 30 January 2019. The appellants filed not...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 62 Craighead Diocesan School Board of Proprietors v Thompson [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...one within the meaning of s 174E of the Act, because it did not comply with s 174E(a)(iii) and (iv). [23] For analytical purposes the application also drew attention to s 184 of the Act.23 [24] If the application failed an extension of time to file a statement of defence was sought as an alternative remedy. [25] The application to strike out concentrated on the Authority’s determination not being amenable to a challenge because it had not expressed any conclusions, or made an...

5. NR v HT [2019] NZDT 1335 (6 November 2019) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...also advised that deteriorated steering gear made the boat unseaworthy. Mr R considered that the boat was misrepresented to him and was neither of acceptable quality nor fit for purpose. He has spent well over $20,000.00 repairing the boat. Mr R filed a claim seeking compensation of $15,000.00 as a contribution towards these costs. 3. Prior to purchasing the boat, Mr R had viewed a report on the boat written by a boat builder, HT (the Report). Mr R named the vendors, CT Limited (...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 107 JKL v Stirling Andersen Ltd [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...to make non- publication orders in respect of determinations. Clause 10 of sch 2 to the Act states: 10 Power to prohibit publication (1) The Authority may, in respect of any matter, order that all or any part of any evidence given or pleadings filed or the name of any party or witness or other person not be published, and any such order may be subject to such conditions as the Authority thinks fit. [22] This provision does not indicate any temporal limit as to when the power can

7. Van Wey Lovatt v Accident Compensation Corporation (Code of Claimant's Rights) [2024] NZACC 020 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...exist, or the specialist opinions received didn’t identify a physical injury. Unfortunately, there appeared to be confusion around the need for you to complete a separate ACC6300 for each of the treatment injury claims. It was noted from the file and detailed in the above timeline you had been advised but I reiterate it here. To meet our privacy obligations ACC required your consent to obtain information regarding your claims. Hence the need for you to sign and return an ACC6300...

8. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v O'Connor [2023] NZLCDT 25 (9 June 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...with the disciplinary process [34] Although Ms Pender asks us to treat this as an aggravating feature, it is probably better expressed as the lack of a mitigatory factor. There is no doubt that Mr O’Connor repeatedly breached directions for filing of his evidence and indeed never filed a formal response to the charges. We do not accept Mr Paine’s submission that the multiple 13 New Zealand Law Society v Stanley [2021] NZLR 50, at [42]. 9 breaches were primarily th...

9. LCRO 187/2022 JP Limited v YG (6 June 2024) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...forwarding unnecessary correspondence to the LCRO. • the desirability of bringing closure to these proceedings. [28] The Review Officer ordered Mr JK to pay the sum of $500 towards the costs of the review. [29] I have not been able to compare the file in that review with this file, but I endorse the description of JP’s complaints by [Law firm 1], when they say:6 This complaint has been ongoing for nearly 3 years, during which JP has continuously filed extraordinarily lengthy, ver...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 158 Auckland Council v Eco Earth Limited [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...[2] Within 10 working days, complete the following site stability works (site stability works): [2.1] Batter back the current fill profile, on the southern, western and eastern slopes, from the toe of the current near-vertical face. The re-profiled fill surface should be: [2.1.1] At a profile of not steeper than 1V:3H, [2.1.2] Well rolled/sealed to reduce infiltration. [2.2] Install appropriate surface water drainage to channel surface water away from the batter slope and neigh...