Search Results

1. Jahnke – Waipiro M T Sec.5 Blk X (2014) 38 Tairawhiti MB 274 (38 TRW 274) [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...1955, the Block was re- vested in successors to the persons beneficially entitled - being Hirini Heeki and James and Mary McIlroy. 2 Applications Partition Application from Harata Jahnke (A19990004715) [2] On 30 October 1997 an application was filed by Harata Jahnke under s 289 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) to partition part of Waipiro MT Sec 5 Blk X. A partition was sought in order to provide for a dwelling on the block. Partition Application – Amended t...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Martin [2010] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...matter. [9] Dealing with each denied charge in turn. Charge 9 [10] In charge nine of the September 2008 charges it was alleged that on a date unknown or dates prior to 3 August 2007 that he dishonestly and without claim of right took files from the offices of his former employer legal firm with an intent to permanently deprive that firm of their interest in the property. This charge is supported by the affidavit as I have indicated of Mr T who identifies the particular file...

3. VN v AG LCRO 224 / 2011 (17 May 2013) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...under the threat of forcible removal from the land. The Practitioner was asked to consider whether there was a basis for challenging the entire sale transaction. After consideration of all information (which included a copy of the original sale file) the Practitioner could find no basis for challenging the sale transaction, thus essentially confirming earlier advice that had been given to the Applicant by the previous lawyer. [6] After the Applicant terminated his relationship wit...

4. HE and SD v QXF [2011] NZIACDT 32 (20 September 2011) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...forfeiture of his licence after he had the opportunity to compose himself. [26] The private investigator prepared a report which was given to the Police. The Police were told in the covering letter: “You will observe that we have prepared this file in a manner with the charge being ‘Theft’.” The “file” had the appearance of a police prosecution file. However, there were very significant differences in terms of the substance of that file when compared with a police prosecutio...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 25 PRI Flight Catering Ltd v Saha [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED First Plaintiff AND PACIFIC FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED Second Plaintiff AND DEBASISH SAHA Defendant Hearing: On written submissions filed on 23 January and 18 February 2015 Appearances: AF Drake and B Nicholson, counsel for plaintiffs No appearance entered for defendant Judgment: 4 March 2015 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] Despite h...

6. LCDT - 2016 annual report [pdf, 496 KB]

   ...those cases which could be progressed quickly were heard at the earliest possible date. Some administrative frustration occurs when events beyond the control of the Chair or Deputy Chair delay expeditious process. For example, the oldest live files relate to two lawyers who not only face disciplinary charges, but also charges in the criminal justice system. Because there is a risk of compromising the lawyers’ rights in the criminal trials to be held, the disciplinary process...

7. Hill v PTW Holdings Ltd - 587-591 Great South Road (2023) 262 Taitokerau MB 140 (262 TTK 140) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...way of an email request. I suggested that the applicants may wish to withdraw the application and refile new applications which are pleaded appropriately and address the issues of jurisdiction. Applicants’ Second Response [28] Rather than filing new applications, the applicants have filed a further email dated 30 June 2023. [29] Notably in this response the applicants state: The application as lodged with the Court has two dimensions. On one level, it has substance and is an...

8. HI v D Ltd and FB [2024] NZDT 26 (20 February 2024) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...originally sought $135.85 to cover mileage to travel from [Town] to attend the Disputes Tribunal hearing in [City 3]. As the hearing took place by way of teleconference, that claim was not pursued further. HI was seeking $90.00 for the Disputes Tribunal filing fee and $2.500.00 for aggravated / exemplary damages for stress and inconvenience. 11. The issues the Tribunal has to consider are: a. Did FB and / or D Ltd breach the Fair Trading Act 1986 (“FTA”) by giving misleading...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 79 Simich and Others v Air NZ second interlocutory [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...as follows: In relation to the Convention of International Civil Aviation, and the Standards promulgated pursuant to that Convention, and in particular the standard contained in Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing 2.1.10.1, whether the difference filed by New Zealand has any application beyond New Zealand territorial limits to the extent that the difference purports to apply a more liberal, or lesser, standard than 2.1.10.1. [13] This relates to the extent to which the defendant may h...

10. [2011] NZEmpC 156 Sigglelow v Waikato DHB [pdf, 61 KB]

    ...$2,000 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The Authority declined to reinstate Mr Sigglekow to his former position. 1 [2011] NZERA Auckland 384. [2] Mr Sigglekow filed a challenge in the Employment Court in respect of certain aspects of the Authority’s determination, namely the decision to decline reinstatement, and the quantum of award for lost remuneration and compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i)....