Search Results

1. 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...

2. Tangi v ACC [2013] NZACA 9 [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...which the Authority awarded the appellant costs of $14,000.00. [2] The parties attempted to settle the appeal without the need to pursue the Corporation’s application, however this has not been possible and as all submissions have now been filed, the Corporation seeks a decision on its application. 2 [3] The Corporation has suggested that a reasonable award of costs in the circumstances of this appeal would be $5,000.00. This reduces the amount at issue to $9,0...

3. [2016] NZEmpC 98 Nisha Alim v LSG Sky Chef New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...required, as is explained in that judgment, for the purposes of an application which LSG has made for joinder of PRI for cost purposes. [2] There have been a number of very recent developments. As a result of the Court’s orders, PRI filed and served an affidavit of documents on 1 August 2016, and Ms Alim filed and served such an affidavit on 5 August 2016. LSG considers these affidavits to be deficient. [3] On 4 August 2016, Mr O’Brien, counsel to that point for Ms Al...

4. McKeogh v Attorney-General (Referral back to Human Rights Commission) [2017] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...COMMISSION 1 1 [This decision is to be cited as: McKeogh v Attorney-General (Referral Back to Human Rights Commission) [2017] NZHRRT 2.] 2 Introduction [1] By statement of claim filed on 21 July 2016 Ms McKeogh, Ms La Fauci and Mr Larsen allege that the spousal deduction from New Zealand Superannuation required by s 70(1) of the Social Security Act 1964 discriminates against them on the basis of family status,...

5. Allison - Te Waiti 2C2 (2001) 77 Ōpōtiki MB 37 (77 OPO 37) [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...OPO 194: Beatrice Trinnick Julian Allison (Chairperson and the applicant) Huirangi Grant Keriana Richmond George Parkinson Application Before this Court is an application for review of Trust under section 315 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 filed by the applicant and one of the trustees of Te Waiti 2C2. The application was filed on the grounds that : 1. There is a statutory requirement that the Trust be reviewed; 2. That the trustees are not working together for the benefit of t...

6. Stanley v Committee of Management for Maraeroa C Inc. - Maraeroa C Inc. (2021) 217 Waikato Maniapoto MB 242 (217 WMN 242) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...entering or occupying any part of the land or buildings of the Maraeroa C Incorporation, including for the avoidance of doubt the tourist chalets owned by the Maraeroa C Incorporation, pending the conclusion of the substantive application to be filed by the Maraeroa C Incorporation… [2] After the granting of the interim injunction, the Maraeroa C Incorporation (the Incorporation) filed its substantive application seeking, among other things, a permanent injunction against Edward...

7. Tito v Tito - Mangakahia 2B2 No 2A1A Ahu Whenua Trust (2017) 146 Taitokerau MB 135 (146 TTK 135) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...S TE A MILROY 146 Taitokerau MB 136 Introduction [1] An application for an urgent injunction pursuant to s 19(1)(b) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) was filed by Kevin Tito on 13 February 2017. Mr Tito is a trustee of the Mangakahia 2B2 No 2A1A Ahu Whenua Trust (“the trust”) and he seeks to prohibit Aroha Tito and John Andrew, the other two trustees, from convening and conducting an annua...

8. LCRO Annual Report 2021 [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...1,283 complaints in the reporting period. During the same period, the LCRO received 189 review applications, meaning 14.7 per cent of Standards Committee decisions proceeded to a review.1 1 Given that there is a 30 working day time frame for filing a review application, no exact match can be made between Standards Committee determinations and review applications for any given period of time. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Qtr 1 (July - Sep) Qtr 2 (Oct - Dec) Qtr 3 (Jan - M...

9. NQ & OR v CN [2023] NZDT 436 (11 September 2023) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...success. The following claims are before the Tribunal to resolve. a. NQ and OR seek $5,422.14 which is: i. return of the $5,000 retention; ii. $242.14 which is calculated as interest and penalty for late settlement on the $5000; and iii. $180 filing fee to bring the claim in the Tribunal. b. CN seeks to retain the sum of $1,994.65 from the $5,000 retention which is made-up of the following: i. $210.00 for accommodation; ii. $200 for carpet cleaning; iii. $602.60 for profes...

10. TR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 82 [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...the applicant had suffered a personal injury, and even if a personal injury could be established there was insufficient evidence to show that such injury was caused by her work. This decision was upheld on appeal by His Honour. [3] The parties filed submissions in writing, having been directed to do so, and being informed by Minute dated 22 February 2023 that the leave to appeal application would be determined on the papers. [4] This Court notes while the applicant has filed he...