Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 135 Mani v Sharma [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Appearances: H Mani, no appearance P M Finnigan, liquidator representing the second plaintiff S Sharma, no appearance Judgment: 4 October 2019 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN [1] On 6 June 2018 the first and second plaintiffs filed a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority).1 The Authority ordered the second plaintiff to pay a total of $27,536.57 for wages, holiday pay, interest and compensation.2 The first plain...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 11 Cooper v Phoenix Publishing Ltd [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...INTERLOCUTORY (NO 2) JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH (Application for leave to defend the proceeding) [1] On 19 December 2019 Phoenix Publishing Ltd applied for leave to defend this proceeding. Leave was required because the company had not filed a statement of defence on time. [2] Filing that application caused the adjournment of a formal proof hearing that had been scheduled to be conducted that day. Subsequently, the company was directed to serve its application on Ms Coo...

3. Criminal template – Pre-CMM file analysis [pdf, 72 KB]

   PRE-CMM FILE ANALYSIS ReferencePolice v Complete the following sections prior to obtaining instructions Evidential Sufficiency What are the elements of the offence? What is the evidence to prove these elements? What are the possible defences? Evidence to support a possible defence? (Defendant) Y N N/A Disclosure consideration checklist (Criminal Disclosure Act 2008) Has disclosure been received? Is any further disclosure required? (If yes, has it been requested? What is the tim...

4. Respond to an application for a Restraining Order

   ...you want to respond If you don’t respond to the application, the judge can decide whether or not to make the Order without hearing what you think. If you decide to have your say (called defending the application), you’ll need to fill in the forms, file them with the court and then serve them on the other person by taking or sending them to their address for service at least 5 working days before the hearing. You cannot personally serve your documents yourself, but you can be present when an...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Civil >
   3. Restraining Orders

5. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [pdf, 595 KB]

   ...dated 3 June 2021. 2 [2] That decision addressed complaints that had been made against Mr GS and [LAW FIRM A] ([LAW FIRM A]) (trading as [LAW FIRM B]), and an own motion inquiry concerning Mr SW. [3] Mr SW and [LAW FIRM A] ([LAW FIRM A]), filed applications for review of the 3 June 2021 decision at the same time (LCRO 105/2021 and LCRO 104/2021). [4] [Area] Standards Committee [X] also issued a decision on publication following the issue of its substantive decision. [5] Mr G...

6. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (Privacy Act) [2020] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 353 KB]

   ...delay, gives rise to a deemed refusal to provide information. [76] On 13 October 2016 IDEA Services provided the Marshalls with file notes made between 10 December 2015 and 18 December 2015. As IDEA Services, by its own admission, ran a paper-based filing system these file notes should have been readily able to be retrieved and supplied. Once again, IDEA Services did not advance any reason for the delay in supplying these documents, so there is no proper basis for that delay. Twenty-...

7. Waxman v Pal (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2017] NZHRRT 4 [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...proceedings before the Tribunal. [3.2] Declines the application by Dr Waxman for non-publication orders. History of the application [4] The Tribunal’s substantive decision was given on 11 August 2016. [5] When Dr Waxman on 30 September 2016 filed the request for name suppression the application was not served on Dr Pal because Dr Waxman believed the application contained sensitive information of a personal nature. [6] Nevertheless, Dr Pal was entitled to be heard on the applic...

8. LCRO 35/2021 ZN v YM and XL (16 December 2021) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...subject to the terms of the retainer; and (d) it was satisfied that Ms YM had not breached any of her professional obligations; and (e) Mr XL had not breached any of his obligations under the conduct rules. Application for review [19] Ms ZN filed an application for review on 18 March 2021. [20] She submits that: (a) the Standards Committee had focused its inquiry on the narrow and unrelated issue as to whether clients have a right to change lawyers; and 6 (b) it was n...

9. LCRO 126/2023 EG v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...and 5 April 2022, being provided as security for the purpose of the loan repayment in full, between the registered proprietor and his wife, [the applicant] as the Debtor and the Caveator as the Lender. [19] On 8 July 2022, the applicant’s lawyer filed an application for lapse of the second caveat against the [Suburb B] property. [20] On 26 July 2022, the respondent filed an application for an order that the [Suburb B] caveat not lapse. [21] On 8 August 2022, the High Court made...

10. Tuhaka v Samuels - Succession to Kahukuranui Piwari [2025] Chief Judge's MB 728 (2025 CJ 728) [pdf, 586 KB]

    ...date 3 April 2025 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA C L FOX Judgment of Chief Judge C L Fox 2025 Chief Judge's MB 729 Hei timatanga kōrero Introduction [1] This application, filed in 2020 by Kathleen Tukaha, seeks an order pursuant to s 44 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 amending succession orders made at 174 Napier MB 265-269 dated 5 December 2023 in respect of Kahukuranui Piwari in relation to the interests of...