Search Results

1. ABC v XYZ [2013] NZHRRT 25 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...[19] The plaintiff was the only witness called in support of her case. The defendant gave evidence on his own behalf and called two witnesses, being Ms JM McPherson and Dr AR Coates. The plaintiff’s evidence – overview [20] The plaintiff has filed: [20.1] A statement 48 pages in length (144 paragraphs). [20.2] A 23 page statement in reply to the brief of evidence filed by the defendant (93 paragraphs). [20.3] An 8 page statement in reply to the brief of evidence filed by Ms J...

2. Watson v Parker - The Proprietors of Torere 64 Incorporated [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 543 (2015 APPEAL 543) [pdf, 388 KB]

   ...interested parties who outlined the circumstances of the election and the fact that the votes counted included at least two votes cast pursuant to proxies purported to be issued by or on behalf of deceased owners. [12] On 10 November 2014, Mr Clews filed a Notice of Intention to Appear on behalf of the respondents, advising that they supported the inquiry; that the practise of the Incorporation for many years had been to permit administrators or beneficiaries of the estates of decea...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 152 Performance Cleaners v Chinan [pdf, 546 KB]

   ...of Ms Chinan, which in turn refers to evidence outlining the history of the litigation. For the 4 JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Lewis [2015] NZCA 255, [2015] 3 NZLR 618. company, Mr Barron filed an affidavit referring to background matters which gave rise to the filing of the employment relationship problem. [18] The foregoing submissions and evidence will be referred to in more detail as is appropriate. Legal framework...

4. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Williams [2019] NZLCDT 33 [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...obligation to the trust, no obligation to her, notwithstanding the previous relationship, that's your position? A. That's my position. [16] Counsel for Mr Williams relied on the view expressed by Matthew Charles Hay who swore and filed an affidavit in support of Mr Williams. Mr Hay is an expert practitioner in the area of trust law. He expressed the opinion that the payment was a trustee task and that Mr Williams was not acting as a lawyer. The conduct referred to...

5. Cross v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for personal injury, revocation of cover) [2024] NZACC 58 [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...records support the client sustained a fracture of the L mandible and not “multiple fractures involving skull and facial bones - Left.” A more accurate READ code would be S022- closed fracture of mandible left. Whilst there are limited notes on file these do not support a traumatic brain injury was sustained at the time of the event (there was no concern documented to support this at the time, there was no loss of consciousness (not Koed), “no other external head injury”)....

6. Van Wey Lovatt v Health New Zealand (Strike-Out) [2023] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...retrievable. [4] At a teleconference held on 21 July 2021 the parties were in apparent agreement that the issues arising from Dr Van Wey Lovatt’s claim were confined to the alleged breaches of Rules 5 and 6 of the Code. A timetable was set for the filing of the parties’ evidence. The timetable provided for HNZ to file its evidence first. [5] On 14 October 2021 HNZ filed its evidence. The evidence addressed the history of the very unhappy interaction between the parties, why HNZ...

7. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...concern. 15 [43] Mr Cody assumed that the work being done on units 2A and 2B, where he understood that engineers were active on site, would be similar to the work done on units 2C and 2D. Mr Cody said that there was reference in the Council files to the Council not having sighted the foundations but being satisfied when advised that there was a structural engineer involved. Mr Cody also confirmed that the first inspection was pre-cladding and the second was pre-lining....

8. [2021] NZEnvC 124 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...the directions in Decision 2.8. These were to file a final version of the ‘plan change’ in the form intended to be notified, a final version of the directions sought and a proof copy of the related notices. We are satisfied that the documents filed by QLDC are in order and make directions accordingly. Conclusion [52] A final step will be for QLDC to file an update of its August Version to reflect our determinations in this decision and for the purposes of our final approval f...

9. Wright v Ngamoki-Cameron - Heretatua (manu on the Tītī Island of Taukihepa) [2015] Chief Judge's MB 108 (2015 CJ 108) [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...majority of the beneficiaries present on their island in the year the manus are allotted”, 11 and the Court no longer has jurisdiction to allot and determine entitlement to separate manu in Taukihepa. [16] On 17 August 2007, Mrs Wright filed an appeal against the dismissal of that part of her 2004 application. The application for appeal was dismissed on the grounds that under s 45(5) of the Act there is no right to appeal a dismissal of a s 45 application and so it was out...

10. Watson v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2015] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 199 KB]

    ...information requested pursuant to information privacy Principle 6 if the disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual. [5] Ms Watson now challenges that decision. [6] After the parties had filed their briefs of evidence in these proceedings, the CCDHB on 22 December 2014 disclosed to Ms Watson a redacted copy of the Response to Complaint together with a redacted copy of the Meeting Notes. [7] The issue in these proceedings...