Search Results

1. [2021] NZACC 38 - ACC v White and Ovation NZ Ltd (19 February 2021) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...event”. Dr Burgess assessed that the more plausible mechanism for the injury was the 2008 injury. [13] On 30 November 2017, WorkAon issued its decision declining Mr White’s claim for cover. The decision letter stated: The medical evidence on file does not confirm that a traumatic event occurred on 3/10/17 and therefore it is considered that your current condition is more plausibly related to your 2008 non work related thumb tendon injury. [14] On 6 December 2017, Mr White lo...

2. [2025] NZIACDT 09 – ZZ v Wen (10 February 2025) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...extreme flooding in the North Island. It is understood an employer was identified, but no details have been provided to the Tribunal. Ms Wen informed the agent on the same day the application had been lodged. [7] At about the same time, Ms Wen filed with Immigration NZ a completed Work Visa Declaration Form (Immigration NZ’s form INZ 1225). It included an authorisation for Ms Wen to file the application on behalf of the complainant. It was purportedly signed by him on 7 March...

3. Guide-2-A-Guide-to-Refugee-and-Protected-Person-Appeals.pdf [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...date that is 7 calendar days after it was sent; b) if it was sent by email, on the date that is 3 working days after it was sent. You may be able to lodge a humanitarian appeal as well as a refugee and protected person appeal. If so, it must be filed with the Tribunal within the same time period. For further information about humanitarian appeals, see section 16 below. 5. How to count the days for lodging an appeal When you count the 10 (or 5) working days, do not include: a) a S...

4. LCRO Annual Report 2010 [pdf, 517 KB]

   ...applications required the LCRO to exercise the duties and powers of the Lay Observer pursuant to section 355 of the Act. Whether the reviews have been completed Between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010, 173 reviews have been completed, 31 related to reviews filed in the previous reporting period.2 Reviews outstanding Of the 237 applications filed in this period, 95 remain current as at 30 June 2010. The timeliness with which the reviews have been completed 118 applications for...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 38 French v The Warehouse Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...Authority. [23] Dealing first with the application to strike out for want of prosecution, I am not satisfied that the defendant has established the first test, that of inordinate delay. Even if it could be said that there is delay between the filing of the statement of claim in the middle of last year and the filing of the application to strike out in early March this year, that cannot qualify as inordinate delay. It follows in those circumstances that it is unnecessary to deter...

6. [2008] NZEmpC AC 5/08 Skinner & Anor v Stayinfront Inc & Ors [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...Wallis, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Rob Towner, Counsel for the defendant Judgment: 19 March 2008 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] This judgment concerns strike out applications made by the defendant. Background [2] When the plaintiffs filed personal grievance claims in the Employment Relations Authority, the defendant raised the preliminary question of whether final and binding settlements they had entered into at the end of their employment in 2002 amounted t...

7. Hall v Opepe Farm Trust (2011) 45 Waiariki MB 142 (45 WAR 142) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...those costs personally? [2] The issue of costs is referred to in detail in my principal judgment dated November 2010. 1 That decision was unsuccessfully appealed to the Māori Appellate Court. 2 The Appellants in that proceeding have now filed a further appeal with the Court of Appeal. They have also sought an adjournment of any costs determination in the Māori Appellate Court pending the appeal. I am not aware of any application for stay being filed. 3 [3] In these circu...

8. MK v PB LCRO 338/2012 (11 July 2014) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...unrendered (if you have any) e.g. a mortgage over your property. Alternatively, you agree that our fees will be payable from the proceeds of the claim if you succeed at Court or settle beforehand. You will also need to pay all the disbursements such as filing fees when required. [6] With that letter Mr FH also included again the firm’s terms of engagement. [7] Mr PB responded:3 Let’s run with option C thanks and ask the judge to award full costs when we win. [8] In early Ap...

9. Sharko & Ors as Trustees of the Moata Trust [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...accepting that the house is a leaky home, both the assessor and the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing have concluded that the claim is not an eligible claim because the house was built more than ten years before the claim was filed. The claimants have applied for reconsideration of the chief executive’s decision under section 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). The Issues [2] The key issues to be determined in this...

10. Sharko & Ors as Trustees of the Moata Trust [pdf, 99 KB]

    ...accepting that the house is a leaky home, both the assessor and the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing have concluded that the claim is not an eligible claim because the house was built more than ten years before the claim was filed. The claimants have applied for reconsideration of the chief executive’s decision under section 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). The Issues [2] The key issues to be determined in this...