Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 118 Christiansen v Sevans Group (NZ) Ltd & Mercer & Evan [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...for sequestration of the first respondent’s assets. Leave was granted to the applicant to bring that aspect of the application back before the Court. She was given 90 days within which to do so. [2] A number of documents were subsequently filed by the applicant. In my minute of 31 May 2013 I referred to the steps required to support an application for sequestration. The material filed by the applicant was insufficient to enable any order for sequestration to be made. I dire...

2. Originating application template [doc, 26 KB]

   In the High Court of New Zealand [Name of registry] Registry (Note: this is the city/town where the proceeding is filed) No: [the reference number allocated by the registry, starting with CIV-] (note: proceedings not yet filed will not have a number) Under the [specify the Act/s and section/s] (note: this is only required if you are bringing this matter under a particular Act) In the matter of [specify matter to which proceeding relates] Between [full name, place of residence, occupation] App

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

   ...“written confirmation of the availability of comprehensive insurance” for the property “acceptable” to her. [5] On 17 September 2013 Mr BK received Ms CL’s copy of the purchase agreement from the vendor’s agent. [6] His handwritten file note of his telephone conversation with Ms CL that day included that (a) there were “no finance/LIM” conditions on the “front page” of the purchase agreement, (b) “approval form and content ok 23/9/13”, (c) “insurance: 5...

4. LCRO 201/2021 DK obo The LK Estate v BY and FM (31 July 2023) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...were referred to the [Z] Standards Committee (the [Z] Committee). After inquiring into the complaints, the [Z] Committee determined, in a single decision, to take no further action on them. That was in May 2016. 1 Lawyers Complaints Service file numbers 13875 and 13876. 2 [4] Mr DK did not apply for review of that determination. He was nevertheless dissatisfied with the outcome. In 2019, he brought a claim in the Disputes Tribunal against [Law firm A] as a firm.2 This...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 92 Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [pdf, 426 KB]

   ...– discussion (a) Tutty documents (b) Allegation relating to customer data and information which Mr Powell accessed from his computer for customers for whom he no longer had responsibility (c) Allegation that Mr Powell accessed sensitive files relating to Hally’s budget and business records [47] [47] [49] [51] (d) Allegation that Mr Powell attached USB devices to his computer and failed to return or disclose these on termination of emplo...

6. LCRO 35/2017 QK v JF and EG (29 May 2019) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...conveyancing division of the law firm [Law firm] (the firm) to finalise the purchase. 2 [5] A junior practitioner in the firm was assigned the task of completing settlement. Mr JF was the partner in the firm who had overall responsibility for the file. Mr EG is a senior partner in the firm. The complaint and the Standards Committee decision General Comments [6] Ms K filed a complaint against Ms QK. That complaint has been the subject of a Standards Committee inquiry and d...

7. Minute 31 January 2017 [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...LIMITED Respondent MINUTE OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT 3 Introduction [1] Eight appeals have been lodged with the Environment Court in relation to the designation appeals under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Auckland Council has filed s 274 notices in relation to five of the eight appeals. Tram Lease Limited has lodged an interested party notice in relation to the Dilworth Trust Board v New Zealand Transport Agency appeal. [2] Auckland Council filed the s 274 notic...

8. 2021-03-16 Beef + Lamb Deer Industry NZ MOC ORC Evidence [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...caution, Beef + Lamb New Zealand and Deer Industry New Zealand would like to advise that supplementary evidence will be filed for (a) Helen Marr (planning); and (b) Andrew Burtt (economics); and (c) Jane Chrystal (science). 4. We propose a filing date of Friday 26 March 2021 to ensure that the experts have an opportunity to properly evaluate and respond with their supplementary evidence. 5. The requested time to file reflects the importance of the proceedings, proposed changes,...

9. Murphy v Ministry of Social Development (Extension of time) [2017] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...Goodwin, Member Mr RK Musuku, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr J Murphy in person Mr P Gunn for defendant DATE HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 1 May 2017 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL GRANTING DEFENDANT EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING STATEMENT OF REPLY 1 [1] Regulation 15(1) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 provides that a defendant who intends to defend proceedings must, within 30 days after the day on which the notice of proceedings...

10. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Corrections (Extension of Time) [2017] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 139 KB]

    ...OF REPLY 1 [1] Regulation 15(1) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 provides that a defendant who intends to defend proceedings must, within 30 days after the day on which the notice of proceedings is served on him or her, file in the office of the Tribunal a statement of reply to the plaintiff’s claim and must serve a copy of the statement of reply on the plaintiff and any other party. [2] By memorandum dated 19 April 2017 the Chief Executive of the Departme...